Harry’s Place

On rather thin ice calling people Tories aren’t you David?

I wasn’t sure if this was satire or not. I could not find any reference to Clause 28, fox-hunting and hanging. Are you being a trifle unfair to DD?

Other than the 42 days, he does refer to the young boy arrested for referring to the scientologists as a cult. I think that is another serious erosion of free speech that we should be quite worried about.

Oh how very, erm, sectarian (and misrepresentative) of you David “I’m not saying vote Tory but that Ken Livingstone is a ghastly man isn’t he” (T)

You’re very wrong on point 2: the last Communist state in Europe is a a haven for hunters!

see <a href=”http://www.belhuntservice.com/en/index.php”>here for details (possibly my favourite tourist website ever, let alone of a state tourist agency)

In Belarus Sus scrofa kept their primeval state and their major feature is an astonishing fang size: fancy a hunter’s joy when unique specimens with the length from 240 to 270 mm are added to his collection of hunting trophies!

(I also love the shop in the East End of London, the exact location of which I am keeping secret, which has a big sign in Russian “The Cheapest Vole, Mink and Fur-skins in London!”, nowt in English, and nowt visible through its windows, so as not to give the game away to “animal rights” scum)

TheIrie - please fuck off.

Mwa ha ha. (Chuckles evilly)

I’m looking forward to watching this completely farcical piss-take of a by-election. Though I resent having my taxes spent on it, quite frankly. DD had better be suitably entertaining against UKIP and the BNP in singing for his supper.

I wonder what the turn-out will be like. Derisory, no doubt.

We should have made it 42 days years ago. Then we could be looking forward to enjoying an extra couple of weeks without the company of Abu Qatada.

Typical - he pledges to bring back the upper-class “sport” of foxhunting but makes no pledges about the working-class sports of bull-baiting and dog-fighting.

Same old, same old Tories. Cruelty is only for the priveliged.

Graham, you have such a metropolitan mindset.

Once you get beyond south london the working classes DO (or did) partake in fox-hunting (as any fule kno).

I do think this would make a fun Harry’s Place outing.
http://www.belintourist.by/download/belintourist_tours_hunting.pdf

Oh and how long do the H.P. Powers that Be intend to keep the pretty blue masthead and what I take to be (I’m useless with identifying faces) the mugshot of Haltemprice’s second most famous M.P.?

Once you get beyond south london the working classes DO (or did) partake in fox-hunting (as any fule kno).

Ah yes - they get paid to fill in holes and suchlike - rather like the footmen at Buck house “take part” in Royalty!

Working-class barbaric sports were banned in the 1820’s - high time that foxhunting joined them.

I still don’t see what’s authoritarian about fox hunting, or right-wing about anti-homosexual legislation. His motives and the benefit of the byelection can be examination in isolation and he’ll still be a two faced git. And TheIrie a fucking moron.

I bet Wardy has employed a few beaters in his time

(This may or may not have any connection with huntin shootin and fishin)

I still don’t see what’s authoritarian about fox hunting

Ah now see in the 17th and 18th century all sorts of folks were removed from land they had occupied for years and shipped off to Yankeeland so that the new “sport” of foxhunting could be pursued.
Therefore Bush probably only exists because of Basil Brush. Down with BrushHitler I say!

(Same thing is happening round Dartford way now only with Golf.)

very funny,

Davis is no real libertarian despite his new found “beliefs”, this whole episode has more to do with internal Tory politics than any real opposition to locking people up without charge

Davis supported 28 days incarceration without charge, etc

his none too “libertarian” views are here, http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=David_Davis&mpc=Haltemprice+%26amp%3B+Howden

Oh, and while we’re talking about inconsistency. . .

When the Council thought it would be a nice idea to ban non-Muslims from using the Council swimming pool at certain times, David T of Harry’s Place raised hell at this illegitimate use of the Council’s authority.

When the West Midland Police reported the Dispatches documentary to OFCOM Harry’s Place was incensed at this illegitimate use of the WMP’s authority.

When Gordon Brown steam-rollered through a bill enabling the police to bang people up for six weeks before charging them, Harry’s Place was jubilant, shouting Go Gordon! The longer the better!

Lock ‘em up! Lock ‘em up! Lock ‘em up!

(To the tune of Here we Go!)

Indeed, Graham, White Cargo and all that, but has DD campaigned against hare coarsing or dog fighting?

Has he hired Sunny Hundal as his agent yet?

When Gordon Brown steam-rollered through a bill enabling the police to bang people up for six weeks before charging them

Rather weirdly, this bill only exists in your own mind.

Davis seems quite un Libertarian on issues of Gay Equality.

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=David_Davis&mpc=Haltemprice+%26amp%3B+Howden&dmp=826&display=motions

“Git” is a much under-used and under-valued pejorative term. Even if you’d never heard the word before, you’d immediately appreciate what was intended by its use from the sound alone.

Also, it really does describe a specific type of person and is not an epithet to be hurled as a general term of abuse. A “git” does not necessarily have any clearly identifiable character flaws; so for example, I’d never call Benji a “git”. No, the things about a “git” that annoy us almost defy explanation; we know we find “gits” objectionable, but have difficulty articulating why.

Thanks, Alec. I’m off to call my noisy neighour a “git”. He’s built like a brick shithouse and would tear my arms off if he knew what I was saying, but fortunately for me he is from the Ukraine and has no English.

Although knowing my luck, “git” is Ukrainian for “child molester” or similar.

KB

My position on 42 days is that I would like the Government to explain precisely why it is necessary. I don’t dismiss out of hand the possibility that such a provision is essential if spectacular acts of mass murder are to be prevented. However, I don’t think the Government has made its case. I think, in particular, that 42 days is a figleaf to cover up inefficiency and underfunding during the investigation process. In other words, I think it is an expediency.

Confessionally segregated swimming, by contrast…. well!

tim

Iain Dale is very sweet about Davis Davis, who attended his Civil Partnership ceremony recently. Apparently, he got through the whole event without once shouting:

“Oi Oi!! Backs to the wall, lads!!!”

This shows that Davis Davis is a great liberal, after all.

KB Player wrote:

“When Gordon Brown steam-rollered through a bill enabling the police to bang people up for six weeks before charging them, Harry’s Place was jubilant, shouting Go Gordon! The longer the better!”

is that really the case?

HP doesn’t exactly have a “line”, some of the main contributors may support it (Brownie as an example)

I am not sure of other people’s views, clearly the nutty fringe, such as ChrisC (who seems to have left the Ken Livingstone’s payroll so can revert back to mad dog Tory form) does, but he’s marginal

for myself I am against jailing people without charge, and have been for decades, that applies in the old Soviet union, China, Burma, Tibet or any other country with appalling human rights, for me that holds true in the United Kingdom as well.

I know it’s a bit radical being against 42 days, 28 days, etc

maybe we should have a show of hands?

does 42/28 days only apply to the UK or would people be happy if they were locked up in Saudi Arabia, for 42 days without being charged, etc?

after all most States can always find “some” grounds for locking people up?

I wonder what “Sunny and Conor’s new best friend” (TM) is going to say about the release of Abu Qatada.

Davis says on his website http://www.daviddavisforfreedom.com/index.cfm?fa=contentGeneric.rlczcolekxitofel

extremists such as Abu Hamza are left free for years to incite violence and vitriol against this country.. Ooh dear what does that mean ? That he wants steps taken against “preachers of hate” perhaps ? I wonder what ? Deportation perhaps ? Or detention ? New laws aimed at Muslim extremists (sorry “brown people”).

This one is going to keep giving us comedy classics for a long time….

does 42/28 days only apply to the UK or would people be happy if they were locked up in Saudi Arabia, for 42 days without being charged, etc?

I would like to see why an upper limit of 42 days is required: and specifically, why those things that need to be done if mass murders are to be prevented, absolutely cannot be done within 28 days or two weeks. I would like to be certain that only crimes of the greatest magnitude, where the risk of their occurance is very high, would result in detention without charge for 42 days. I would also insist on full and proper scrutiny, with representation, by an impartial judicial tribunal.

Were I satisfied that all this was possible, then I could be persuaded.

It is just that I haven’t been.

I reckon Davis is in fact in favour of detention without charge but only for certain people ie certain non UK citizens and people like Abu Hamza. How else can you explain extremists such as Abu Hamza are left free for years to incite violence and vitriol against this country ?

Wonder how he’s going to formulate that policy to keep Sunny and Conor on board eh ?

The bit I really like from Iain Dale’s defence of his mate is this:

Ben Bradshaw slags David off for voting against civil partnerships (I am not able to check this out at the moment) but I am as certain as I can be that having attended two civil partnerships (one more than me!) and been so obviously moved at mine yesterday, that if he had to vote on it again, he might vote in a different way.

i.e. Davis Davis boohooed at the ceremony.

Ah now see in the 17th and 18th century all sorts of folks were removed from land they had occupied for years and shipped off to Yankeeland so that the new “sport” of foxhunting could be pursued.

That statement smacks of both left-wing self pity AND anti-americanism.

Have you ever owned a chicken-coop?

Have you any idea of just how wiley, caclulating and disciplined a fox can be?

They are extremely clever probleme-solvers who can figure out ways to get around just about any obstacle farmers can throw at them.

They’ll steal and eat every friggin’ hen you own!

Fox hunting began as a measure to cut poultry loses, and slowly, at least in England, evolved into a formal ‘upperclass’ sport.

In the rural Ontairo of the early 60s, however, fox hunts were common and essential, but the ‘upperclass’ aspect had yet to evolve.

.

“Iain Dale is very sweet about Davis Davis, who attended his Civil Partnership ceremony recently. Apparently, he got through the whole event without once shouting:

“Oi Oi!! Backs to the wall, lads!!!” “

Got it all out of his system at the Stag Night, perhaps…? ;)

Lets give Davis the benefit of the doubt on Civil Partnerships.
Perhaps he has changed his mind.
I suspect a lot of people have, and its one of the great pieces of liberal legislation in the last 30 years.
But if Davis was lobbying for Clause 28 after civil partnerships were introduced,then I’d be a bit suspicious of his political motives.
And brains.

That statement smacks of both left-wing self pity AND anti-americanism.

Blimey JP I am used to your wilful misrepresentations but I’m having trouble working out how English people being removed from their ancestral land and shipped to America is “anti-American”!

Fox hunting began as a measure to cut poultry loses, and slowly, at least in England, evolved into a formal ‘upperclass’ sport.

The first fox hunters were farmers with a single dog (that much is true.) The enclosure acts made it impossible to hunt stags and so the stag packs were turned on foxes. Some Lords of the Manor (particularly in Norfolk for some reason) liked the idea so much that they started clearing and deporting whole villages to make way for foxhunting. You can’t change history JP (though God knows you try to in every bloody post you make here!)

Have you ever owned a chicken-coop?

Nope

Have you any idea of just how wiley, caclulating and disciplined a fox can be?

er, nope

They are extremely clever probleme-solvers who can figure out ways to get around just about any obstacle farmers can throw at them.

They sound like those dastardly Bosnian Muslims

They’ll steal and eat every friggin’ hen you own!

There would be some fucking fat foxes around if they ate every hen in a battery farm JP!

Tim, unlike Bob Marshall Andrews who sees faggots everywhere.

I suspect, to be honest, that Davis Davis has genuinely started to worry about freedom, and the proper limits of state power. He may well be fluffifying slightly. A lot of Tories I know have. Even those of my parents’ generation…

I just get the impression that he’s sort of bumbling into it, a bit like a 6th former who has got hold of a copy of On Liberty, and has suddenly realised that he’s discovered a damn good argument against the school rule which says you can’t wear green socks.

The first fox hunters were farmers with a single dog

I have a disgusting fox in my back garden, which digs up the plants, and makes the whole place smell, well, foxy. In a bad way.

Fortunately, I have a terrier puppy, born to a long line of professional fox killers. I think the fox won’t last that much longer.

At the moment on a side bar at David Davis’s new web-site it states -”Welcome to my campaign to preserve our fundamental freedoms. On 12 June, I resigned from Parliament to take a stand against the sustained assault on British liberty. I resigned after the vote on 42 days, because it marked a watershed.” The full item he posted initially said the same. The latter has now, however, been amended to refer to the announcement of his “intention” to resign. No doubt the sidebar will also be amended when the error is spotted.

It is, however, interesting that the very item placed for the launch of his campaign should have contained such a basic factual error. Perhaps his bye-election will be handled in the same sub-standard way in which he campaigned for the leadership of the Conservative Party. It is a pity that a fine principle should have such a useless standard bearer.

david t will soon throw his weight behind Sunny and Davis if Ken Livingstone stands.

There would be some fucking fat foxes around if they ate every hen in a battery farm JP!

I merely wanted to point out that animal-on-animal ‘fights’ are not quite the same thing as a fox hunt.

The enclosure acts made it impossible to hunt stags and so the stag packs were turned on foxes

Uh…yeah… right!

Like there’s a lot of meat on a fox!

Foxes are extremely cute when pups, but their intelligence ( and penchant for laziness) means they’ll often snag a meal at the expense of local farmers, rather than engaging in the canine grunt work needed to bag real prey.

They can be a very expensive nuisance.

That’s how fox hunting began.

“I have a disgusting fox in my back garden”

How big is your back garden?
Or does it just visit.

A mere 140 acres.

Indeed, there is a private foxhunt that has the run of the entirety of David T’s yard.

Although knowing my luck, “git” is Ukrainian for “child molester” or similar.

Don’t worry, Brownie, it’s not (and Ukrainians are not obsessed about child molesters like the English are, anyway: there is no direct equivalent of the Daily Mail in Kyiv).

“dolboyob” is quite a good bit of east slavic cussing, as is “mudak” (that one literally means “donkey’s penis”, I think), “pots” should be understood, “poshal na khoy” (with a gutter “loch” type “kh”) should also do the trick, “yob tboyu mat’” (”fuck your mother”) is almost used so often conversationally that it has largely lost it’s force. At least in Odesa

I am glad that Davis has taken this line and got some debate going about the security of the citizen v the liberty of the citizen- but I would be pretty horrified if he did ultimately become Home Secretary. Roy Jenkins he is not.

Uh…yeah… right!

Like there’s a lot of meat on a fox!

Well the other main target was hares (not a lot of meat on them either!)

The passing of the Enclosure Acts from 1760 to 1840 had made hunting deer much more difficult in many areas of the country, as that requires great areas of open land. That and the end of many of the old Royal deer parks during what we call the Interregnum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Interregnum

To spare Ven’s blood pressure…

Hugo Meynell (1735-1808) master of foxhounds for the Quorn in Leicestershire is the man generally given credit for turning foxhunting into what it was before those nice Nu-lab types banned it: Central to his vision was an extended chase through wide, open grassland – a landscape he saw emerging across the Midlands’ newly enclosed fields.
Foxes were actually very scarce and had been driven nearly to extinction by both the medieval deforestation of the country and zealous gamekeepers intent on protecting grouse moors (shooting being a much more popular sport.) Indeed many hunts (after shoving the human inhabitants off the land) started breeding programmes with the aim of re-stocking the countryside with vermin- so if your chickens are getting stolen blame the foxhunters as they artifically created the problem they pretend to solve!

“so if your chickens are getting stolen blame the foxhunters as they artifically created the problem they pretend to solve!”

Yeah, in Trollope’s novels the ladies put up with their chicken houses being raided as they know the foxes have to be left alone for the hunt. If you shot a fox you would be ostracised by your neighbours.

Urban foxes always look more skanky than foxy, bit like Amy Winehouse coming off licenced premises these past coupla years, fwiw it’s the cats round here that keep them in line though, but good luck with dog theory anyway.

Gawd Almighty, satire’s not dead with this one, is it?

“Urban foxes always look more skanky than foxy”

There was one that lived in the park behind the house where I lived. Everyone’s bins were in the front rather than the back of the house so the beast had nothing to scavenge and was a size 0. I used to leave out food for it.

Consistent liberals are impossible to find. You only have to visit this website once in a while to understand this simple fact about the human condition. Hanging people isn’t illiberal - it’s just that I disapprove of it. Hunting foxes isn’t illiberal - it’s just that I don’t approve of it. Is he right about the forty-two days? Brownie thinks not. This is fair enough but whatever this is, it isn’t liberalism.

http://armchairnews.co.uk/2008/06/17/join-in-the-campaign-to-rescue-liberty-in -britain/

http://armchairnews.co.uk/2008/06/17/join-in-the-campaign-to-rescue-liberty-in-britain/

it isn’t liberalism.

Maybe not. But it’s not not liberalism, either. So why does it make us inconsistent?

Oh great. RCP spam!

I do think that we need to tilt towards liberty, and away from statism

But for chrissake. How depressing to have fucking Brendan O.Neil and Davis Davis fronting it. Because you know we.ll be treated to guff about ‘low expectations’ and ‘the risk obsessed society’.

I can’t bear it

Munira Mirza.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/17/1

“(via the Tory website, Pickled Politics)”

You fucking what!?

Is it only me who finds the idea of a foxhunt called “Quorn” amusing? Oh, ok.

KB Player, have any of the authors come out in favour of 42 days? I am beginning to think HP may be a false flag operation for the liberal elitists. I bet you all meet up to get your rocks off throwing bruschetta bricks at the toiling workers, don’t you?

If only a true progressive like Kelvin MacKenzie could be persuaded to write for HP.

It is blindingly obvious from this that you understand none of the issues you mention, nor the meaning of freedom.

Come, come, voting tory is nothing to be ashamed of. David T recently led a big and influentual, and ultimately successful, campaign to ensure that London had a tory mayor - albeit one we might have hoped had been more of a cavalier to Davis Davis’s roundhead. But alas, Bozza has kept his hair short and neat (for the first time ever methinks) and banned boozing on the tube. So we woz rubbed.

Pickled Politics is growing up. Remember that a man who is not a socialist when he is 20 has no heart, and that a man who is not a conservative when he is 40 has no brain (or heart either, given how socialist tends naturally to overfloweth into statist tyranny, but I digress, and I had already abandoned socialism by the time I was 20 for what it was worth, after 30 minutes in St Petersburg)

Good piece by Munira

A fox ate rat-poison on the allotment a couple of years ago. It was a hot summer.

Is he right about the forty-two days? Brownie thinks not. This is fair enough but whatever this is, it isn’t liberalism.

Forgive me, but shurely giving the police the discretion for detention for that period without judicial oversight would be illiberal. It’s just that I don’t approve of it.

And, this will either tackle a point which no-one has addressed or make me sound like an arse, but 42 days does not apply across the UK (although, I suspect, individuals from across the UK may be liable for detention for suspected offences committed in the relevant area).

“Good piece by Munira”

To alter a phrase from Leon, “you fudgeing what?”

It’s a veritable minefield of spot the fallacy.

Munira is right to want put on a festival which properly reflects the richness of London’s many cultural groups, rather than a bunfight for groupies for the Cuban royal family.

Hmmm. To switch into serious mode, I am unconvinced that specifically “anti-racist” music festivals are intrinsically worthwhile, or achieve anything, other than posturing and a feeling of self-importance on the part of the activist nomenklatura.

However, at the same time, I was sort of happy to grumble about this in a hypothetical manner. Because I am also pretty convinced that Johnson’s move is representative not so much of a forward-thinking approach on anti-racism, but rather a vendetta against unwashed groups that the Tories hate with a passion. Probably more than I do. Wow. I am not convinced that this is anything other than traditional Tory “don’t give a fuck about the marginalised” politics.

I mean, it is hard to get worked up about. But I just have a vague sense of foreboding. I’m sure Barnbrook will be cock-a-hoop, for one.

Given the choice between living in a monarchy and a republic, I would almost always go for a monarchy.

(Indeed, look - - many of the most consistently liberal states in Europe - - including many whose “liberalism” I would disdain heartily - are indeed constitutional monarchies. And I fear we may yet live to see Silvio Berlusconi eventually get his wish of becoming President of the most sublime society, if not most sublime polity, in the world. If only there were a regent in the wings with a realistic chance of ascending….)

There is no greater protection against tyranny than a head of state who isn’t answerable to the tides of public opinion

“Munira is right to want put on a festival which properly reflects the richness of London’s many cultural groups, rather than a bunfight for groupies for the Cuban royal family.”

Her argument goes, the presence of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign compromised the anti-racism message of the festival, and therefore overt anti-racism must be abandoned.

“I’m sure Barnbrook will be cock-a-hoop, for one.”

He actually thinks that he was influential in the decision.

http://www.boriswatch.co.uk/2008/06/17/whitewashing/

There is no greater protection against tyranny than a head of state who isn’t answerable to the tides of public opinion

hahaha. You become more and more comic as time goes on!

“There is no greater protection against tyranny than a head of state who isn’t answerable to the tides of public opinion”

“Have you any idea how totalitarian that sounds.”

Respectfully,
Ben

There’s also the fact that David Davis’ statement denounced restrictions on demonstrations in Parliament Square as an infringement of free speech, a mere three years after David Davis voted for this infringement of free speech on a free vote.

Come, come, voting tory is nothing to be ashamed of.

For the umpteenth time, yes it is.

Have you [Ven] any idea how totalitarian that sounds.

Yes he does.

But alas, Bozza has kept his hair short and neat (for the first time ever methinks) and banned boozing on the tube. So we woz rubbed.

Oh don’t worry. He’ll make a prat of himself. Londoners are already regretting what they’ve done.

David B

He was for it before he was against it.

There is no greater protection against tyranny than a head of state who isn’t answerable to the tides of public opinion

If this was the late 18th century, I’m sure Venichka would be one of those wistful young chaps penning odes to Napoleon.

I also see that David Davis is firmly in favour of the freedom to not allow people to take recreational drugs.

If this was the late 18th century, I’m sure Venichka would be one of those wistful young chaps penning odes to Napoleon.

Good God no! (He’d be bemoaning the guillotining of Louis the IVth.)

David T quotes some rabid “Tory” opinions, and then vaguely attributes them to Pickled Politics. But the five points he quotes were not those of PP, but from a comment he himself made on PP. He appears to think the fact that the “opinions” were self-evidently absurd (except to the likes of TheIrie), makes this misrepresentation OK.

What are you up to David? Why can’t you present such views as your own? I don’t pretend know what DD is up to, but I would prefer to get it from him, not have it mangled by you.

“On rather thin ice calling people Tories aren’t you David?”

Was TheIrie mocking himself? I doubt he has the wit, or self awareness.

But it’s sad if he meant it.

What a trite post.

Have you [Ven] any idea how totalitarian that sounds.

Well, maybe it SOUNDS that way.

But paradoxically, it isn’t, is it? In fact it is the opposite of pro-totalitarian.

For example: Look exactly at which countries, during the “time of troubles” after WWI fell into the hands of (or enthuisastically welcomed the coming of) dictatorships - welcoming in the new, the modern, the contemporary, that of their time.

Generally speaking, those with (constitutional) monarchies were incubated against the fanatacism of these times. Far better to have a head of state appointed by God than by popular vote. There is no greater protection against tyranny. Tradition is the democracy of the dead.

I also see that David Davis is firmly in favour of the freedom to not allow people to take recreational drugs.

There are a number of contraditions in Davis’s position but I don’t see this as one of them. I have spoken out as strongly as anyone here in defence of civil liberties but my position is a liberal, not a libertarian one and I’m not neccessarily in favour of the legalisation of all recreational drugs. It’s a subject on which I’m genuinely undecided.

Will David Davis have a final go at Brown in the Commons between noon and 12.30pm today before resigning? See it on -
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/VideoPlayer.aspx?meetingId=1956

With the exception of hanging, I am in full agreement with Davis on the issues mentioned above (I seem to recall that he is broadly anti-abortion too)

I think Davis (if he is canny) could actually start a whole party full of middle-class lefties who want to become tories but just can’t bring themselves to leave behind the moral high ground of feeling part of the left.

I think Davis (if he is canny) could actually start a whole party full of middle-class lefties who want to become tories but just can’t bring themselves to leave behind the moral high ground of feeling part of the left.

You’re on to something there Graham.

All it needs is Davis to be a bit more anti-war.

David Davis finally moved to take the Chiltern Hundreds this morning, in time for him to no longer be a member of the Commons by Gordon Brown stood up to answer Prime Minister’s Questions. So why did he make us wait 6 days for him to take this promised action? He also then immediately resigned the post when it had served its purpose of removing him from Parliament.

We now await the move in the Commons of the writ for the bye-election. I assume that this will be done soon in order to seek to enable the polling day to fall on 17 July. All that remains to see is that when the writ is moved will some MPs seek to run a filibuster against the proposal and/or call for a division to seek to stop it? If the writ isn’t issued soon, then it can’t be obtained until after Parliament’s Summer Recess and the bye-election will not be possible until November. By then circumstances could arise which could lead to David Davis losing. But I expect that 17 July will be accepted by the powers that be.

Thank you Harry Barnes for that pantomime guide to quitting Parliament.

technomist: Thanks, I am always pleased keep tiny tots and tiny trots entertained.