egafd.com

Sam Slater wrote:

> In all seriousness though, who in their right mind would vote
> for Boris? The mind boggles...

Perhaps the electorate of London feel that the Mayoral position is far too boring and dull, so therefore they want it to be filled by a bumbling upper-class twit who has the inability to string one coherent sentence together.

Interesting fact about BJ is that he has Turkish antecedence and he's very keen that Turkey should join the EU.

Someone I know with VERY good info says he has won it, by more of a margin than you'd expect.

To be honest, I don't know why the national press have to even inform the whole country, who's bloody mayor of 'Landan'.

I seem to have been sucked into having an opinion on it, when I couldn't name you the mayor of Manchester, or Leeds and they're only 30 miles away. I can watch it all unfold from the safety of home and I hope Boris does a better job than my estimations predict.

Manchester and Leeds do not have Mayors, so you have nothing to be ashamed of in being unable to name them.

Lord Mayors(esses) then.

Completely different thing.

Not in the context of my main point.

Of course it is.

The post of Lord Mayor is a purely ceremonial, non-executive one.

It would be somewhat unusual to be aware of the identity of one's local Lord Mayor.

None of that makes a difference about me needing to know who the mayor -or lord mayor- of London will be, living in the north of England.

I thank you in pointing out Manchester doesn't have a mayor; I thank you for reminding me there's a difference between a mayor and a lord mayor, but, really....again, it has nothing to do with my point.

Can't you ever say "oops, my mistake", and leave it at that?

You're as bad as your old man.

Perhaps you might be so kind as to furnish me with your email address, as I would like to forward to you a number of emails on the subject of penis enlargement.