Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Although quite why Starmer and the Labour party aren’t making more of all of this escapes me.
You ought to be used to this now.
Starmer is playing the really really long game.
Except Labour are making use of it
Starmer was on Marr this morning
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1457317348612968448?t=CoAvdmGSBL_KEb8xlYnNnw&s=19
And focusing on Moggs stupidity too
Tony Blair’s special moment imo was when he decided that receiving a million quid was more important than the wider health considerations of the nation.
Indeed, hardly a shining moment. But then is there an estimate yet on what the chumocray have made out of Covid? I'm guessing it's a bit more than a paltry million quid...
I mean do Tories really want to talk about politicians putting money ahead of public health right now?
So is this really the defence for Shagger and Co? "Look Labour did some naughty stuff two decades ago", Does that mean we should accept this governments current behaviour?
Is that actually what you're saying?
A reminder… Paterson was lining his own pockets, not bringing in funds for his party. I hate the way our political parties are funded, and the influences that funders then get over government policy. But an MP being paid half a million quid, to keep for themselves, to act for companies in parliament or when dealing with government, that’s a whole extra level of “who do our MPs work for?”
So is this really the defence for Shagger and Co? “Look Labour did some naughty stuff two decades ago”, Does that mean we should accept this governments current behaviour?
I want even aware the government had said it, I think only Ernie has
Has he given his £100k back yet? LOL
Love how having to resign is seen as the worst thing EVA. Wish I got caught trousering hundreds of thousands and got to walk away without anything more than a telling off.
Hell, if nanny was doing the telling off I'd throw her some of the £££s. Saucy scamp.
It looks like my MP, a Red Wall Tory, has called him c**t.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/red-wall-tory-tells-owen-paterson-youre-a-c-300066/
Harsh, but fair.
kelvin
Full MemberA reminder… Paterson was lining his own pockets, not bringing in funds for his party.
I'm not sure how that's worse? You can make a pretty good argument for party corruption being worse than personal corruption, at least Paterson didn't need to conspire with other people in power to make it work.
At the end of the day, how it undermines democracy is the big problem and I think it's pretty certain that when parties practice corruption for their own gain that undermines democracy more than when individuals do. In this case, they managed to buy 1 MP. In other cases you can buy a government. (Of course you can sometimes buy an individual who'll drive a whole government, like with NHS procurement scandals.)
I want even aware the government had said it, I think only Ernie has
Well I'm glad you said 'think' Kimbers, because the suggestion that I am claiming sleaze by the Tories is somehow justified by previous Labour sleaze is clearly ridiculous.
As ridiculous as pretending that in recent years cash-for-honours sleaze hasn't been primarily associated with Labour.
And whilst on the subject of ridiculous another thing that is is the claim that the Tories rallied round Owen Paterson to save one of their own and a personal friend of Johnson.
Firstly the only loyalty Johnson feels is to himself. Secondly the Tory Party is utterly ruthless and if they had thought that it would be in their interest to hang Paterson out to dry they would have done precisely that.
The Tory Party is in fact so ruthless towards those it considers to be a liability that with little hesitation they sacked their greatest post-war heroine, and she was literally driven out of Downing Street crying, when it became obvious that her flagship policy had become an electoral liability.
There is a reason why Johnson and his fellow Tory MPs took the such high risk strategy as to attempt to protect Paterson. It was always going to be risky. And it came as no great surprise to me that the Daily Mail refused to back them, how the hell were they suppose sell that to their readers?
I didn't watch Andrew Marr this morning but it would appear that Starmer has hit the nail on the head. It has bugger all to with "honour among thieves" or any other fanciful notion about Tory largess towards one of their own.
I have always said that what Johnson fears most is scrutiny, that was obvious imo when he was London Mayor. He hates scrutiny partly because there is very little substance to the geezer, and partly because he's as dodgy as ****.
I see Johnson is unable to attend the debate this afternoon regarding sleaze in his own party. He's visiting the North East, and unlike last time when he had to hurry down to speak with Charles Moore, he won't be hiring a helicopter, and apparently the train timetable, "doesn't favour his attendance" And neither will Jacob Rees Mogg...Even the Tories are beginning to realise that his particular brand of condescending toff is starting to wear thin.
Someone should sneak in and put a sack of horse dung where he'd sit.
On second thoughts, I'm not sure anyone would notice the difference.
I see Johnson is unable to attend the debate this afternoon regarding sleaze in his own party
For a man so bone idle he doesn’t half find some urgent, pressing things that need taking personal care of, as far from Westminster as possible, when the heat gets turned up
Which one of his human shields will be sent out in his place today, I wonder?
Moggs still whimpering in a corner somewhere, I reckon Raab is due for a Sweaty stand in
Johnson refusing to apologise for the paterson farce shoes hes not learning
Stephen Barclay apparently.
Yep, me neither.
Someone should sneak in and put a sack of horse dung where he’d sit.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qn1t1
George Eustice speaking in support of Owen Paterson yesterday. I wonder - who was Secretary of State at Defra when Georgie got his first ministerial post there...?
Oh its Barclay
Moggs still whimpering in a corner somewhere
Waiting for Nanny to come and tell the beastly rotters to go away.
Barclay isn't on top of his own treasury brief so a lack of coherence and clarity from him is guaranteed.
He's been volunteered for this.
Hopefully a little light evisceration.
If being on top of your brief is a prerequisite then you’re going to struggle to find anyone amongst this gang of Brexiteer dimwits
The plan is obviously to bore everyone into submission by putting up braclay
If recent TV performances are anything to go by, ie: Question Time, the plan seems to be to put up someone so spectacularly dim (they’ve a large demographic to choose from)that they haven’t got an actual clue what’s going on, and just burble a load of incomprehensible nonsense that nobody can make head nor tale of
Barclay isn’t quite in the Helen Whately or Theresa Coffey class, but he’s not far off
Hopefully a little light evisceration.
Also, as Barclay is a stand-in, Starmer, (assuming he's now through his isolation) should send Angela Rayner into bat Handily, she's far more effective at giving them a bollocking than he is!
both brilliant and disturbing in equal measure.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/08/boris-johnson-no-10-flat-renovation-watchdog
Boris Johnson’s spokesperson said there was no need for Stone to look into the matter as the No 10 flat was not connected to the prime minister’s role as an MP…
They are laughing at us.
^ that cartoon is disturbing...
I watched the debate in parliament this afternoon. Illuminating.
There were 46 Tory mp’s in the chamber. Out of 360. Shows the contempt many have for their constituents or just too embarrassed?
Of those Tories who spoke, I don’t think any were supportive of the govt. approach last Wednesday, although Bill Cash kept on interrupting on behalf of his friend Paterson to the extent even those on his side told him that he had made his point many many times and that he was still wrong.
At one point it was pointed out that Boris had arrived back in London at 5pm. The debate finished at just after 7.
Raab getting a grilling on R4. Good to see this story growing and almost all the papers sticking the boot in again today.
Just listened to Raab defending the indefensible. To summarise:
“Do you think it’s reasonable for MPs to be getting paid vast sums of money to represent private interests, while neglecting the job they’re meant to be doing?”
“We’ll that’s what people voted for, yes”
I paraphrase slightly, but only slightly
It’s an interesting tack to take. We’re totally corrupt, yes, but you must have known that when you voted for us.
Shows the contempt many have for their constituents or just too embarrassed?
Johnson is a man who think the rules don't apply so runs away from a debate about whether the rules apply to him and his friends, thus proving that he thinks the rules shouldn't apply to him/them.
I've scanned through the list of Tory's "outraged" and "apoplectic" about scrutiny into their lives, and it's exactly the people you assume have the most to lose. Geoffery Cox, Chris Grayling, Liam Fox...who votes for these idiots?
Tories are much more corrupt than labour. Remember most of these "second jobs" are actually bribes
ernie is a bit disingenuous with his blaming of labour for inventing "cash for peerages" - yes they did much earlier than Blair but the Tories did" cash for access" including bungs in brown envelopes and also cash to their mates and legalised corruption on a much larger scale
so while labours hands might not be clean its a tiny amount compared to the scale of the Tories corruption
ernie is a bit disingenuous with his blaming of labour for inventing “cash for peerages”
And it is disingenuous of you to claim that I did.
In response to the claim of cash-for-honours I said "that's another idea that Johnson has pinched from Labour"
What is wrong with that? It is very much the case that in the recent past cash-for-honours has been massively associated with New Labour.
Just do a search of the term "cash-for-honours" and Google will throw up a load of results linking cash-for-honours with New Labour.
Here is the Wikipedia entry on cash-for-honours :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-Honours_scandal
I appreciate that me mentioning it has irritated New Labour apologists but it is disingenuous, to use your word, of them to deny it.
The perception of our resident lefties about relatively is quite something to behold
Labour are as bad as the Tories?
Jesus wept!
If their were league tables for corruption and cronyism then the present Tory party is a regular Champions League finalist and has just won the league title for the 10th year running
The Labour Party, on the other hand, is having a relegation scrap at the bottom of the Vanerama Conference League
Even Mandleson at his worst was mid-table third division
You lot really do need to get a ****ing grip!
What we're seeing is the culmination of years of deliberate concentrations of power in a small group of an elite class of politician and business interests. This new group of Tories are just the latest version of a "born to rule" (in their heads) group who've managed to ride a wave of populism and got into power.
Corruption doesn't have to wear a dictators uniform, in this country it's also been money provided at just the right side of the rules, which are themselves drawn in such a manner as to be technically bendable to allow it.
The right wing press will actively tell you that you haven't just seen the things you have, Bots will swamp social media with the chosen message (the one for the sleaze scandal is "Storm in a tea cup") and conspiracy theories will flourish.
This is our lives now.
What is wrong with that? It is very much the case that in the recent past cash-for-honours has been massively associated with New Labour.
simply incorrect
Tories are much more corrupt than labour. Remember most of these “second jobs” are actually bribes
And how cheap are they 'bought'?
Paterson gets £100k, Randox get's a £470m contract.
The Tory Party gets £12k, Desmond saves £40-45m in taxes.
Wonder when all the rest will come out?
Read this and Raab will have you believe having a man on the inside is in the UK’s interests.
He (Raab) said: “It’s quite important that parliament, which is responsible residually for some areas of our relationship with the overseas territories, has got some knowledge of what’s going on in those territories … Actually being in touch and working with our overseas territory is quite important piece of the responsibilities in the UK and indeed our parliament.
Funny ****er.
Cash for honours
the history of this goes back to pre first world war and in 1925 laws were passed to prevent it. Labour were not really an electoral force then
Tories invented it - make no mistake
In the more recent era it was Harold Wilson and " the lavender list"
Its always been tory practice to let folk buy honours - its just they are more subtle about it and the scale of corruption in the tory party is far in excess of anything under even the worst Labour governments
First nail in the coffin?
As ridiculous as pretending that in recent years cash-for-honours sleaze hasn’t been primarily associated with Labour.
My overriding memory of the outcome of the cash for honours scandal was the publication of list of donors to both major parties for the first time detailing how much they both owed to wealthy individuals.
I think one of the greatest tricks of the Tory party is propagating the myth that they are all as bad as each other. It gives people a clearer conscience when voting Conservative. They really aren't morally all equal, especially when it comes to sleaze
I think one of the greatest tricks of the Tory party is propagating the myth that they are all as bad as each other
Its worth pointing out that they are greatly aided in this task, as this thread itself demonstrates, by those on the left who seem to think that unless you’re living in a damp council flat on a sink estate, wearing sack-cloth and surviving on out of date mung-beans then you’re obviously corrupt
But even when the Mail published this the other day, it was still referring to generic ‘MP’s’, so by implication it’s all of them that are at it
In reality, there’s absolutely no comparison between the Tory’s, plenty of whom are earning millions on the side, and the members of any other party. They’re institutionally corrupt. It’s in their DNA
by those on the left who seem to think that unless you’re living in a damp council flat on a sink estate
You talking about this?
https://twitter.com/alexnunns/status/1457809003380105218?s=21
I think one of the greatest tricks of the Tory party is propagating the myth that they are all as bad as each other. It gives people a clearer conscience when voting Conservative. They really aren’t morally all equal, especially when it comes to sleaze
Experience has taught me that it's pretty much odds-on that anyone who says "all politicians are as bad as each other" is a right-wing voter.
Experience has taught me that it’s pretty much odds-on that anyone who says “all politicians are as bad as each other” is a right-wing voter
Have a read of the last couple of pages. It’s actually the same on both sides once you stray from the centre. Our resident lefties here all think that ‘they’re all as bad as each other’ too, as they vocalise at every available opportunity (see above)
Apart from Saint Jeremy of Corbyn of course. Somehow all the money he gets for his extra-curricular activities is all just fine and pure and virtuous and just morally superior
It’s actually the same on both sides
So you still believe it then?
Apart from Saint Jeremy of Corbyn of course. Somehow all the money he gets for his extra-curricular activities is all just fine and pure and virtuous and just morally superior
Genuine question, do you really believe that Jeremy Corbyn is not morally superior to Boris Johnson?
Its worth pointing out that they are greatly aided in this task, as this thread itself demonstrates, by those on the left who seem to think that unless you’re living in a damp council flat on a sink estate, wearing sack-cloth and surviving on out of date mung-beans then you’re obviously corrupt
Lol! Laughing at you though, not with you...
Apart from Saint Jeremy of Corbyn of course. Somehow all the money he gets for his extra-curricular activities is all just fine and pure and virtuous and just morally superior
What's all this money then? Care to elaborate?
You talking about this?
Oof. Awks. You can see him squirm. 'Shit, I can't take that lucrative offer now all this crap has hit the fan. Bollocks'. Just another cheek of the same arse.
Just gonna leave this here...
Not short of a bob or two, are they?
Let's all talk about Labour... even at the point where the press are finally actually criticising our current government and their supporting MPs. Yes.. let's do that.
- Corbyn's outside interests have always been small fry compared to your average Tory MP, never mind the worst offenders.
- Blair's family have done very well out of the London property boom. And would have without him being PM.
- Starmer not taking on new work five years ago is in no way equivalent to Tory MPs taking on paid consultancy work. That "same arse" comment has nothing to back it up at all.
Blair’s family have done very well out of the London property boom. And would have without him being PM.
So, his family's incredible wealth has nothing at all to do with his extremely powerful and influential global connections then? All simply down to hard graft, right?
Starmer not taking on new work five years ago is in no way equivalent to Tory MPs taking on paid consultancy work. That “same arse” comment has nothing to back it up at all.
You really don't think Armrest would happily take lucrative extra jobs if he could 'get away with it'? He's probably been lining up his career beyond politics, all along. He'll no doubt be richly rewarded for his work in destroying the Left, and undermining British democracy. There'll be no shortage of grateful beneficiaries of that, lining up to thank him...
But even when the Mail published this the other day, it was still referring to generic ‘MP’s’, so by implication it’s all of them that are at it
Interestingly, they've moved the language this morning... "Tory" in the sub heading... perhaps it'll be in the headline next...
Blair’s family have done very well out of the London property boom. And would have without him being PM.
Bollox
He flipped prioperties and paid for them out of expenses - that gave him the start - and he has been paid eyewatering sums for almost no work
His snout was as firmly in the trough as any tory - which is of course what he was. He wanted to be rich. that was his only aim
He may well have not have done "as well", but barristers who got into property in London in the 90s are all sitting on very tidy portfolios now. The Blairs and their children would be sitting very pretty now if they'd stayed away from politics. Happy to accept they'd probably be less rich... but they would still have been very well off indeed.
He may well have not have done “as well”, but barristers who got into property in London in the 90s are all sitting on very tidy portfolios now. The Blairs and their children would be sitting very pretty now if they’d stayed away from politics. Happy to accept they’d probably be less rich… but they would still have been very well off indeed.
Agree with all of that. Two people on roughly 6 figure salaries dealing in property in a booming market would do well whatever the circumstances. I'm no Blair fan and happy to knock him but this isn't really it and certainly nothing like the the current Tory sleaze. That's where the focus should be.
Here's a thought....
We could pay MP's more (double their salary) bit prohibit jobs on the side.
Pay cabinet ministers tripple their salary but prohibit them from taking a job in any field that relates to their Ministerial brief for 5 or 10 years.
Tell me why this wouldn't work?
I’m no Blair fan and happy to knock him but this isn’t really it and certainly nothing like the the current Tory sleaze.
Seriously? I'd read up on the Ecclestone affair... looks pretty similar to me.
Agree though that the current Labour Party isn't responsible for Blair's dodgy deals twenty years ago.
We could pay MP’s more (double their salary) bit prohibit jobs on the side.
Sounds great... but what about making money from owning things, rather than for hours worked? What if you part own an investment fund, for example, that will profit from political decisions made that you are in a position to influence. "Jobs" is just the most easily understandable bit of all this.
I'd like something in the rules to allow some outside work though... for example medical staff that want to keep the ability to practise... perhaps they could have whatever they learn outside result in a decrease in their MP's salary. Would definitely like payments from media and press to result in a decrease in an MP's salary.
We could pay MP’s more (double their salary) bit prohibit jobs on the side.
IIRC, one of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark?) MP's live in state provided accommodation midweek, have free public transport passes they are expected to use and have a state appointed secretary etc for equivalent of the constituency office.
I’d like something in the rules to allow some outside work though… for example medical staff that want to keep the ability to practise… perhaps they could have whatever they learn outside result in a decrease in their MP’s salary. Would definitely like payments from media and press to result in a decrease in an MP’s salary.
It'd be relatively straight-forward to define the parameters for jobs that were socially beneficial. And we're talking a small percentage of 600 people here, so the effort would be miniscule - a simple function of an ethics and standards committee, oh wait....
They are paid enough, and the way that greed and immorality has been legalised at the top of society they don't even have to break the law to bury their noses in the trough.
They commit these acts for the thrills, and to prove they are above the rules of mere mortals. They hold the public in such contempt that they decide to see how far they can push beyond the boundaries just to keep score by how much they are "winning".
MPs should be paid a relative amount to the national minimum wage - Ie a small multiple thereof so cannot have rises without minimum wage rises and they are paid plenty well enough
Apart from Saint Jeremy of Corbyn of course. Somehow all the money he gets for his extra-curricular activities is all just fine and pure and virtuous and just morally superior
You're obsessed with Corbyn. What is this extra money he gets BTW?
Your lack of logical consistency is quite astonishing binners - simultaneously slagging people off for saying 'they're all as bad as each other' while doing exactly that.
You’re obsessed with Corbyn. What is this extra money he gets BTW?
He’s a millionaire from all his rent-a-gob performances for Iranian State TV and Russia Today when he was in his comfort zone of anonymous backbench time-server
Boris Johnson writes for the Telegraph and he’s an evil bastard who is part of the right wing press. Starmer gives an interview with the Sun and he’s ‘colluding with the enemy’. Corbyn is on Russia Today every time they needed anyone to denounce ‘The West’ while he was an MP (before pretending to be Labour leader) and that’s all peachy ****ing creamy, because… erm…
The hypocrisy is absolutely off the scale
Or are you saying that Russia Today has some kind of moral authority that the Daily Telegraph lacks, so therefore it’s ok to be on their payroll?
Your lack of logical consistency is quite astonishing binners – simultaneously slagging people off for saying ‘they’re all as bad as each other’ while doing exactly that.
I’ve never said or implied that ‘they’re all the same, as I believe the polar opposite.
I’m merely pointing out that there are plenty on ‘the left’ who, given the glass houses they inhabit, maybe should refrain from lobbing half-nackers about
What about party gets A amount based on number of MPs. A is a hourly rate x no of MPs x hours in working week.
MPs have to fill in weekly timesheet party pays the wage. Hours and "project" charged to all publicly available.
Accommodation and office support provided.
Accommodation and offices provided by the state, seems like a very wise move to me. Paying the MPs mortgages for them, when they then vote on policies that have the state bending over backwards to ensure property prices keep going up, and earnings made by owning properties are protected, has always seemed odd to me. Need a pad in London to stay in to do your parliamentary work? Here you go... you can stay here. Need a constituency office... here you go... you can take over the one the previous MP used... the state owns it
What about party gets A amount based on number of MPs. A is a hourly rate x no of MPs x hours in working week.
MPs have to fill in weekly timesheet party pays the wage. Hours and “project” charged to all publicly available.
Accommodation and office support provided.
Doesn’t stand a chance. It equates money earned to amount of work carried out you must be crazy (Where’s the angle on that).
He’s a millionaire from all his rent-a-gob performances for Iranian State TV and Russia Today when he was in his comfort zone of anonymous backbench time-server
Citation needed.
You won't get one Grum because its bollox. the " corbyn is a muillionaire" bollox came from the fact he owns one house in london
Citation needed.
Will a Monty Python gif do instead?
I wonder how much Iranian TV pays for an appearance by a backbench opposition MP? Maybe I should have gone into politics.
Last figures I know off were in about 2017 when it was said RT paid about £1000/hour for MPs. The only numbers I can find at all regarding Corbyn in particular is a report that says members of the shadow cabinet have appeared 26 times since 2015 when Corbyn took over. So even if you say 20% of that (random figure pulled from my arse) is JC, and each slot is say a 10 minute interview (about the going time of broadcast interviews with politicians) that total is still just under an hour; 52 mins
So perhaps as much as £870...I wonder how he spent this fantastical wealth, chucked a few more Koi into his piano shaped pool? added a wing to the National Theatre?
It does bear saying though that allowing shadow cabinet ministers to appear on RT at all...strikes me as tone deaf at best.
EDIT: It also bears saying that it sort of neatly demonstrates the different levels of either perceived or actual corruption that we're discussing here. Even critics of Corbyn (or the Labour party in general) would be hard pressed to say that he's in the same league of Patterson or Cox or indeed the Tories as a general rule.
intheborders
Free MemberAnd how cheap are they ‘bought’?
This is the one thing that I can never quite understand. I mean, I understand the facts of it, I just can't ever really comprehend it, like some weird math model shape that can't exist in the real world. But for the most part they're so cheap, I could afford to buy a Tory MP. When you look at the scale of the corruption, the billions of pounds that get poured down the drain (and more importantly the lives that are casually destroyed) during covid, none of them are making a good return on that- they're selling out for pennies.
So why? Do they think it's right- like their god given duty is to give public money to rich people and they just need the opportunity? Are they dim enough to think they're getting a good deal, like a bank branch insider risking jail over a few hundred quid? Everyone's got their price, but at least I can be certain that my price isn't so pathetically low.
"They are paid enough, and the way that greed and immorality has been legalised at the top of society they don’t even have to break the law to bury their noses in the trough."
But are they though? I'm sure there are plenty on here that earn more than an MP's salary and a fair few that earn more than the Prime Ministers salary. The Chair of my Housing Association probably earns more than the PM! Do any af you share the same responsibility and exposure that an elected politician does?
I wonder how many well paid but suitable candidates decide to not go into politics because the income drop combined with the hassle would be too much?
If they've got their noses in the trough, take the trough away and replace it with a simpler, more transparent remuneration system. It might deter the most self Serving and greedy candidates whilst at the same time encourage those with a bit more to offer society.
Or we could just through rotten fruit and vegetables at or politicians and make them grovel for their wages, (though granted, that would make for a good t.v. show and the tabloids would love it)
But are they though? I’m sure there are plenty on here that earn more than an MP’s salary and a fair few that earn more than the Prime Ministers salary.
Oh really - what world do you live in?
I think in general MPs are probably not paid enough. Having spoken with a couple (Yvette Cooper, and Alex Sobel) it can be a 7 day a week job and the hours are both long, frustrating, and as we realised recently again; dangerous to one's health. Certainly if Johnson can earn more as a columnist that he can as PM then something's wrong. There's a Wikipedia pages showing relative salaries in US dollars ($185,000 for PM) we're very much at the bargain basement end of developed nations for pay.
Not short of a bob or two, are they?
Doesn't occur to you that a top human rights lawyer's income and some canny investments ahead of the last big property boom might be involved?
Sure, Blair had his nose in the trough, but like Sunak, he married well.
cox is my MP. his 'constituency office' is just down the road from my house. I can go and take photos of the cobwebs over the door later.
he'll ride out the headlines and get voted back in at the next election with a thumping majority. he doesn't even bother campaigning.
It is very convenient to compare MP's salaries to the 1%ers, when that is the section of society that policy has most benefited over recent decades, that section of society that has accelerated away from the normal life experience, while more and more people are left struggling from paycheck to paycheck or becoming part of the underclass that carries the burden of poverty.
It is no wonder so many MP's believe that they should abuse their positions for personal gain, with impunity, if that is the only section of society they are benchmarked against.
it can be a 7 day a week job and the hours are both long, frustrating, and as we realised recently again; dangerous to one’s health.
for some. for others, its a hobby and a bit of pocket money...