Lord Sumption: Theresa May deserves ‘respect’ but Boris Johnson’s a ‘clown’

By on

Recently retired Supreme Court justice slams hard Brexit ‘fanatics’

Former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption has taken advantage of his recent retirement to sound off about politics, backing Theresa May over the “grim fanatics” in her party and describing Boris Johnson as “a bit of a clown”.

Writing the right-wing Spectator magazine, Sumption reflects that May “did her loyal best to limit the damage” caused by Brexit. The former Oxford history don, who has written four books on the Hundred Years’ War, reckons that “history will be kinder to her than we have been”.

Musing on political strategy, Sumption says that May’s mistake was to “repudiate those who would have been her natural allies. Instead, she made her pitch to the grim fanatics behind her, with whom no agreement on damage limitation was ever possible”.

Sumption accuses the Conservative hardliners who want a hard and/or “no-deal” Brexit of “destroying their own party”. The Tories polled just 9% in last week’s European elections.

Summing up the soon-to-be-former PM’s qualities, Sumption remarks:

“May’s courage in the face of adversity commands respect. She was let down by her insularity, which deprived her of wise advice, and by her own utter lack of political imagination, tactical agility or basic communication skills.”

The 2019 Legal Cheek Chambers Most List

Like many retirees, Sumption is doing a spot of travelling, although with millions in the bank from his time as one of the country’s highest-earning barristers he’s likely doing it in more style than most. The former commercial and public law silk recounts a recent trip to the Vienna State Opera, where he was peppered with questions about May’s possible replacement, Boris Johnson.

Asked whether Johnson is “some kind of fascist”, Sumption replies: “Not at all. A romantic, a bit of a clown, but perfectly harmless when out of office”.

Sumption, who retired from the Supreme Court in December 2018, was outspoken even on the bench. In 2015, he caused a stir by predicting “appalling consequences for justice” if more women are rushed into the judiciary. Liberal lawyers have also been stirred up by Sumption’s recent Reith Lectures, in which he argues that the courts are taking over what should be political questions through human rights law.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter



Fascist* Legal Cheeck. Not facist. 🙂









I do agree that May deserves respect for her work on Brexit. I may not agree with her on many points, but she tried her hardest to get something out of it. Unfortunately it didn’t work out because of various reasons, but she tried.


Random passer-by

I think when you back stab your way to the top job, trying isn’t good enough. She got there and didn’t perform. She made too many mistakes, and lacked charm and charisma. Lord Sumption is right, she isolated herself and cut off potential allies such as George Osborne just for petty point scoring, even though he would have been useful. Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill proved to be a pair of bullying incompetents. And she tried to placate the most extreme elements in the party rather than pushing the centrist soft-brexit approach to expose Labour if they opposed her on that.


W. Fields

By applying facile statements such as “Brexit means Brexit”, it is clear that she did not try very hard or even her hardest. Unless you judge her to be of limited intellectual capacity.



Not at all. In this soundbite she had intended to communicate that the vote in the referendum had, necessarily, to be followed through – by the UK leaving the EU. It was an poor attempt to communicate this idea and, as later became clear, communication is not one of Mrs May’s strengths.

It is, of course, easier to be “wise after the event”. Mrs May, like every PM before her, lacked qualities that would have facilitated doing the job more successfully but, above all, her greatest error was to put herself forward for a mission that was always going to be close to impossible which, by her subsequent mis-judgments, she converted into unachievable.



Asked whether Johnson is “some kind of facist”, Sumption replies: “Not at all. A romantic, a bit of a clown, but perfectly harmless when out of office”.

Hmmmm….Bo Jo was out of office when he was plotting to have a journalist beaten up, so I think this is one of the rare occasions when Sumption got it wrong.



If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen!
Beating up a journalist is nothing, try the Theon Greyjoy treatment instead 😂



…cont; (hit send too early)

Also, as a historian Sumption should know that having journalists beaten up is EXACTLY the sort of thing that fascists do.

Sounds to me like they should be adding “Conspiracy to commit GBH” to that misfeasance in public office indictment.



I’m struggling to understand why it is ‘fanatical’ to insist that we honour the result of a democratic referendum.

Following full argument in the said public referendum, the country voted to leave. That means we either agree a suitable exit plan or leave on No Deal.

May’s plan was awful and has quite rightly been rejected. The EU will not offer us more. So now we leave on No Deal.



I love how all the people downvoting this comment can’t offer a single rational point against it.

I accept that you feel really strongly that we should stay in the EU. But we had a vote – and you lost.

Time to accept reality. We’re leaving.

Democracy means accepting the result of the vote – whether you agree with it or not.



Ok go on then…

Not even Farage was saying that we should leave without a deal prior to the referendum. There is absolutely no democratic mandate for that.



Incorrect. Farage argued at the time that, “No deal is better than the rotten deal that we have at the moment.”

The British people knew that ‘No Deal’ would be the result if we failed to negotiate a suitable exit deal and they voted for Brexit anyway. Time to accept that reality.



Farage making a rhetorical pitch that “no deal is better than the rotten deal we have at the moment” is not the same as saying “if you vote for Brexit, and don’t like the negotiated deal, we leave with no deal”. He’s making a direct comparison between EU membership and no-deal, and it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Are you able to support the claim that the British people “knew” no-deal would be the result? Because even Daniel Hannan is saying that no one was talking about a no-deal Brexit as an option prior to the referendum. Liam Fox said that the EU/UK deal “would be the easiest in history”. Michael Gove said getting out of the EU would be “quick and easy” and that the UK would “hold most of the cards”.

There appears to be an awful lot of revisionism going on about the inevitability of no-deal, to the extent that crashing out without a deal has become “leave on WTO rules”, which for anyone who actually knows what that means is the most meaningless rubbish uttered in a campaign full of empty rhetoric.

Further, no one on the ‘lets leave with no-deal’ side seems to be able to coherently explain what happens next. Presumably, given that eight of the top ten UK trading partners are European, the UK then turns around and attempts to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, who then immediately demand their £39 billion, and identical concessions in relation to the Irish border.

The UK also attempts to negotiate deals with the US, who on the basis of the UK’s weak bargaining position and no longer providing unhindered access to European financial markets, demand extensive concessions in relation to regulatory standards and access to compete with vulnerable UK industries (which is pretty much all of them once no-deal occurs). China, meanwhile, looks at the UK economy and wonders what the UK has to offer in terms of trade benefits that it can’t get elsewhere, or like the US, asks for steep concessions.

Another popular option that is suggested by the no-deal proponents is that the UK pursues the path of Singapore by deregulating its financial and service industries to allow them to flourish. Unfortunately while a considerable proportion of Singapore’s economy is financial services, a fifth of its economy is manufacturing, supported by ultra-low wage (because Singapore doesn’t have an official minimum wage) workers building everything from electronics to processing chemicals. Britain’s prospects of becoming one of the globe’s pre-eminent shipping ports isn’t bright either you’d have to think, given that it no longer would provide easy access to European markets, and geographically Britain isn’t in quite the same position as Singapore. Oh, and 80% of Singaporeans live in subsidised government housing, with extremely high levels of inequality, so I’m not sure how this model fixes the problems with the UK that people outside of London apparently voted because of.

Alternatively I suppose the UK could remain trading on WTO rules, alongside… no one, literally none of the other 190 countries in the world just trade on WTO rules, and could decimate the remaining industries they have left outside of services. All very appealing options I’m sure you’ll agree, but I’m guessing my problem is I just don’t “believe in Britain” enough, because that’ll solve everything, just like “believing in Brexit” will magically mean they’d be able to negotiate a better deal. Or I could just be Dominic Raab and just flat-out lie about having agreed a better deal, and claim other parties shanked it. But then again, flat out lying seems a popular (and terrifyingly effective) MO amongst Brexiteers, so I wouldn’t be surprised.


“Farage making a rhetorical pitch that “no deal is better than the rotten deal we have at the moment” is not the same as saying “if you vote for Brexit, and don’t like the negotiated deal, we leave with no deal”.“

On the contrary, it is your argument that is disingenuous obfuscation. You claimed that Farage was saying in 2016 that we should not leave without a deal. The quote shows that Farage clearly advocated No Deal as a palatable option on the basis that it was better than the status quo. Your claim is therefore plainly wrong. Accept it and move on.

The rest of your post is patent hysteria. It amounts to a claim that we somehow cannot survive economically outside the EU. That is obviously untrue. We will be out of the EU trading under WTO rules as the vast majority of the world already does.

Time for you to accept that just because you don’t want this to happen, it doesn’t mean it can’t. We voted to leave. Your side lost the argument. We are leaving. Accept it and move on.


No, that isn’t what I suggested Farage said or even thinks, but the fact you interpreted it that way makes it clear that comprehension perhaps isn’t your strong suit. He did not “advocate” no deal, at least not in that statement. He was making an emotive pitch as to why no deal membership was preferable to the status-quo, not advocating no-deal as a preferable option, but if you can’t differentiate between those two I’m not surprised you’re reduced to asking people to “accept it and move on” rather than scrutinise your positions.

After all, I mean that’s what Brexiteers really fear isn’t it, people actually asking them what they do want, rather than what they don’t want? It’s easy to campaign on a platform of “this is bad” because changing from the status quo could hypothetically solve any problem that people raised – this is what was so inherently dishonest about the Brexit campaign was that Brexit could be all things to all people.

Take Farage, since you didn’t want to discuss pre-referendum statements by any of the other prominent Brexiteers. He also said “Norway chooses its own deal. We will choose our own deal”, alongside a host of incredibly misleading if not downright dishonest statements regarding the post-referendum landscape if leave won.

The fact your reduce a basic overview of the economic position the UK will find itself in post no-deal into “hysteria” is just indicative of the lack of foresight that is demonstrated throughout no-deal advocates. There’s no rebuttal, no counter-points, just “it’s project fear”.

Your claim about the WTO rules is also a blatant lie. It’s not slightly dishonest, misleading, or anything else, it’s just wrong. Mauritania is presently the only country that trades solely under WTO rules globally, a country with a GDP 0.2% the size of the UK’s.

Of course, the UK will try to negotiate FTAs after leaving the EU. US and China trade deals will take time, a very long time to negotiate. Even supposedly simpler trade deals are complex. The Australia-Japan FTA took 7 years to negotiate for example.

No one said it can’t happen, just that it shouldn’t. I’m sure the intellectually deficient like yourself will continue lying through your teeth to make it a reality, of that I have no doubt.


Ah, the salty tears of the Remoaner who refuses to accept that these arguments were all made in 2016 and that the British people rejected them.

Lost the argument then. Loses the argument now. And all he can do is lash out and call the other side liars. Pathetic behaviour.

Sooner or later, you will have to grow up and realise that just because you really really really want something doesn’t mean you can have it.


That would be the tyranny of the 52%. While not wrong, the issue in any democracy is legitimacy.



Your side wins the vote = The democratic result

The other side wins the vote = The tyranny of the majority.

We all see through your hypocrisy and double-standards my friend. Time for you to grow up and realise that just because you don’t get what you want, that doesn’t mean the outcome is illegitimate.


Steven Seagull

Agree, if anything it’s the remainers and people like Sumption who are the fanatics.



The UK is a representative democracy. Can you explain to me what is so all-fired democratic about putting the country through a process for which it has no infrastructure and no proper preparation in order to retain a Parliamentary majority for unrelated matters by bribing (what we now know as) the ERG? Perhaps we should have a bunch of referendums next time we update the Insolvency Act? No? Because it would be too expensive and complicated? But it would be *democratic*, right?



I despise May’s politics and I am of a firm opinion that she screw up almost everything she could because she tried so much to stitch her party together despite all the evidence that it could never work.
She is a “perfect” Tory – always putting the party before the country, always trying to bully others into her vision. She tried to appear …errr… strong and stable, but all her catchy one-liners backfired spectacularly right into her face. One could almost pity her if we only could just forget about all the mess for a second and pretend it won’t impact our livelihoods.

However, I do believe that she will ultimately will be judged less harshly in the future, most certainly not as harsh as Cameron. After all, at least she tried. All that Dave did was screw up the country and leave for a quiet retirement in his mansion, to this day daring to open his mouth and offer his unwanted advice and opinion.

Also, looking at the list of possible candidates that could replace May, I think we are yet at the end of “Who is the worst Brexit PM?” game. Sometimes I get nightmares that they made Grayling our PM and, judging by the current state of the Tory party, I am not even sure if this is just a bad dream or some gruesome prediction.



“She is a “perfect” Tory – always putting the party before the country, always trying to bully others into her vision.”

Do you seriously believe that Tory politicians are like this more than any other party? Labour politicians were recently asked to sign a ‘loyalty pledge’ to the party, which doesn’t surprise me under Corbyn’s (quite frankly Stalinist) style of enforced devotion to the party.

And before you accuse me of being a Conservative voter and apologist, I’m solidly Lib Dem.



“Do you seriously believe that Tory politicians are like this more than any other party? ”

Oh no, to certain degree every party does it. The problem with Tories, however, is that they cater specifically to a very narrow range of people (so it often baffles me how many people who are being continuously hit by Tories’ policies still happily vote for them) and decide to clean up their own mess by involving the entire country in the process (the referendum thing, anyone?) which, again, every party does, but they brought it to insane levels lately.

Corbyn is no better in many ways, I agree. However, I would no go as far as to brand Corbyn as Stalin incarnate. Marxist – sure. Which is sad really, because Labour has quite a few members who would make great leaders and are not as extreme with their politics as Jeremy. My local MP is Labour and he is a very decent chap, I cannot complain much about his record.



Oh what a surprise, Sumption is a Tory. We never guessed that when he was on the bench.



Too right bro. BoJo is a propa cunt.


Steven Seagull

The quicker we leave the better. Walk away. We don’t want the sort of ‘deal’ that the EU is offering.



No deal would be a disaster. You would have to be stupid or a fanatic to want it.



Perfidious Albion on speed!



“The Tories would be a disaster. You would have to be stupid or a fanatic to want them.”

“Labour would be a disaster. You would have to be stupid or a fanatic to want them.”

“AV would be a disaster. You would have to be stupid or a fanatic to want it.”

“Scottish Independence would be a disaster. You would have to be stupid or a fanatic to want it.”

Castigating choices you don’t like as ‘disastrous’ is easy, and anyone can do it to dismiss anything. That’s why we say that that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.



If you think that comment is made without evidence, you’ve been living in a cave for the last three years.



Yes, a minority of people feel really really strongly that the choice made in a democratic referendum was wrong – and have said so over the past three years.

Unfortunately for them, a majority of the electorate disagreed with them.

So I’m not really sure what your point is.



Well thats the problem. The majority voted leave and we should leave. Nobody was asked whether the wanted No Deal / May’s Deal / EEC style deal or somthing else. May didn’t get a majority. So the democratic mandate is leave, but no democratic mandate for how we leave.


Oh that’s easy. What there is a clear democratic mandate for is the Article 50 process.

Which is that we attempt to reach a suitable deal, and if such attempts fail we leave on No Deal.

The country has rejected May’s deal and there appears no realistic prospect of negotiating anything better.

So now we follow the process and leave on No Deal.

It’s really quite straightforward.


We’ve just had nearly 3 years witnessing what happens when one party to a negotiation convinces itself that it “must” get a deal.

You get offered a rubbish deal and paralysis ensues.

It’s time for those who feel emotional about the EU – on both sides, to step away from the negotiation. If you firmly believe not having a Withdrawal Agreement (a relatively recent invention of the EU and not a requirement of any other comparable treaty) is a “disaster” then you have allowed your emotions to open you up to being manipulated.

The sun will still rise – this too shall pass: but we have to do this because we honour votes.



The EU also wants a deal. The idea that you should go into a negotiation with the mindset that you will shoot yourself in the foot if you don’t get a good deal, is something people who have never been involved in high level commercial negotiations would say.

What is clear is that 2 years is not enough time for such serious negotiations, particularly when we didn’t have a clear position before starting. I voted to remain, but i feel we should leave. However leaving doesn’t mean no Single Market or no Customs Union, and we need something that brings along both Leavers and Remainers even grudgingly. We need to reset the clock, engage citizens in forums with experts and take our time to figure out what we want.



You’re conflating not having a Withdrawal Agreement (WA) with not getting an eventual trade deal (an FTA). You also seem to want associate Membership of the EU, which the EU have said we cannot have and why would frustrate the vote to leave. More importantly, TMPM tried that and the Treaty produced is one no sane country could sign up to.

So I think my point remains the same – lots of people had an emotional reaction to the vote. That has clouded their judgment. Not having a WA will not have dramatic consequences for the UK.

2 years was more than enough time to negotiate a WA if we needed one. That ‘if’ is there because no other comparable treaty (Multilateral FTA) requires one. Leaving the EU never used to require one. A WA is the novel invention of the Lisbon Treaty – yet so poorly drafted is that Treaty that precisely what a WA is, is not defined.

Whatever anyone once imagined a WA to be, in practice pursuing one has proved a total waste of time for both parties.

2 years was also probably enough time to also negotiate the FTA – Mr Trump (widely considered an idiot) managed to re-negotiate NAFTA in a year. Tusk proposed we adopt the Canada FTA as a starting point and add in extra areas – that seems very sensible and would have saved time.

We don’t need a WA, we need an eventual FTA – we can only get to that by abandoning the fruitless pursuit of a WA. We have wasted nearly 3 years managing the emotional reaction of a certain group in our country. That’s fine – we are a tolerant and understanding society and I can see people are upset (no doubt that was why you decided to be rude in the first para and attempt to attack an anonymous person). But that is now long enough for people to have come around and people really need to either calm down or leave the issue alone for a bit.



What the EU wants is for the UK to change its mind and stay in the future United States of Europe.

Hence their strategy is to offer us nothing more than an awful deal (which in reality is continued membership in all but name) in the hope that:

(A) the PM proves spineless enough to accept it (which May did); or

(B) the Quislings in the establishment being the process down and reverse the result of a democratic election.

The only way we can proceed now is by rejecting both options and leaving on No Deal



@Anonymous: May 31 2019 10:04am

Someone hasn’t been paying attention in Constitutional Law classes.

You said “Democracy means accepting the result of the vote – whether you agree with it or not.”

If you are referring to the referendum, then you are wrong. Democracy (or at least our form of it) means voting every 4 or 5 years for individual MPs who tend to organise themselves into parties and then if they have a majority, the party with the most seats (not total votes) gets to form a government.

What frothing at the mouth “leavers” and/or people who just don’t know how our system of government works tend to forget (or, more likely, ignore) is that the referendum was not legally binding and was merely advisory.

Another thing you may remember from Constitutional Law lectures is that Parliament is supreme and Parliament cannot be bound. In other words, it can make a law which requires you to paint yourself blue one minute and then the next day decide to make another law which makes painting yourself blue punishable by death. It’s a silly example and would never happen in reality, but in theory that’s how it works.

A general election with parties running on in/out tickets would, however, achieve the same result. The trouble is that both the major parties are pro-leave, so I am not sure how this would work unless Corbyn does a 180 or Labour oust him and elect a pro-remain (and electable) alternative.

If you had 5 people in a car which came to a fork in the road and they decided 3-2 in favour of taking the road on the right but it turned out this road ended in an abrupt cliff edge above a ravine, would they take another vote or just keep driving towards disaster “because this car is a democracy and the will of the passengers MUST be respected!”?

Imagine if boards of directors took the same approach to guidance/requests they received from the shareholders which had turned out to be disastrous for the company, and yet they ploughed onwards to financial disaster because the the will of the shareholders MUST be respected. This example amply demonstrates just why companies are run by directors and not by its shareholders. It also amply demonstrates why referenda are often such a terrible idea.

Call me elitist but I don’t want Darren the hod carrier and Sharon who works in Greggs deciding extremely complex issues like this on my and my children’s behalf. It is abundantly clear that the professional politicians did not even understand the scale and complexity of the problem, so it was utterly insane to ask the public what they thought BEFORE the consequences of what leaving (or staying) would mean for the UK and its population.

The referendum was also very close. Almost as close as it was possible to be in terms of the yes/no split and a LOT of water has passed under the bridge in the past 3 years which makes another referendum or some sort of guidance or mandate to the executive absolutely essential. If leavers are so certain that the public got the result right 3 years ago and equally confident that the said public are still firmly behind that result then they have absolutely nothing to fear from a second referendum. What is it you guys are afraid of?



Yeah, but you wouldn’t be saying any of that if Remain had won the referendum would you?

You’d be saying exactly what I’m saying now: that we had a vote and it was binding.

Just like all the politicians at the time clearly said it would be.

You don’t get to change the rules now just because you lost. Sorry. Democracy doesn’t work like that.


Anonny Non

Correction. The referendum wasn’t binding.

But, like a typical Leaver you adopt the approach that if you tell a bare-faced lie often enough then it somehow becomes the truth.

Children do that.

Children also have another trait in common with Leavers and that is the tendency to jump up and down yelling “It’s not fair! But I want it!!!” over and over and over when they were rashly promised something by someone in authority but then it turns out to be harmful and so they are asked to think again. Come to think of it though, perhaps the UK would be a better place now if a few more Leavers had been allowed to play on the railway line or drink bleach when they were children.



“Come to think of it though, perhaps the UK would be a better place now if a few more Leavers had been allowed to play on the railway line or drink bleach when they were children.”

And with that gem, you’ve just lost the right to be taken seriously in any serious discussion of the matter. Nicely done.


Anonny Non

Dammit. Any newspaper articles or books I publish under that pseudonym will bomb. I wish I had thought it through before I posted as my multi-million pound publishing deals are bound to fall through now.

What I said is true. The majority of Leave voters I have encountered in real life or I have seen on TV or when I have read their ill-formed opinions in the press do not seem to be very interesting, pleasant or intelligent people.

I am not advocating their demise so calm your faux outrage. I was merely stating that the UK might be a nicer place without them.

But, very much like children who throw temper tantrums for long enough so they eventually get what they want, they must learn the hard way.

Given that a great many Leavers seem to be from the blighted hinterlands of this country and are only just about getting by (for which they blame the big bad EU rather than their own lack of intelligence and drive and/or the exodus of manufacturing industries to China), any downturn in the economy will hit them much harder than the comfortable chattering class folk who make up a large number of the Remain constituency and who have a bigger financial buffer zone.


People seem to be finding this very difficult … so let me explain:

You do have to listen to the opinions of Darren and Sharon because there are two of them and one of you.

That’s what democracy is and if you think you’re sudden Damascene conversion to autocracy is edifying then you are very much mistaken.

(I’d also start being a bit nicer to Darren and Sharon if I were you – it makes for a nicer country)



@ Anonymous: May 31 2019 12:42pm

I have no objection to Darren and Sharon voting for their preferred MPs who most represent their views and interests. What I object to is them being given the opportunity to decide a single, very technical and extremely important issue such as this. they are not qualified to do so. To make my views clear and to counter any claims of intellectual snobbery – I also object to MYSELF being given the opportunity as I am in no way qualified to do so. The complexity of issues such as this and the fact that there are perhaps less than a few thousand people in this country who have the necessary expertise and experience to decide such matters is precisely why we periodically elect MPs (who are supported by a Civil Service of expert advisors) to take such decisions.

I have explained how democracy works once or twice already, but for the hard of understanding, I will repeat that the referendum was merely advisory and not binding so is Parliament/Govt choose to ignore the result, that is perfectly democratic. Sorry. But that is how it works.



Thank you for detailing how your autocracy of the future will work.

Darren, Sharron and I will stick with democracy if it’s all the same to you.



Eh? He was detailing how our parliamentary democracy of the present works, you dimwit.


Sumption has cucked out. Sad day.



The problem with the ‘remain until terms’ position is that it’s dishonest.

Those who say that we shouldn’t leave unless the deal is acceptable to them and the country generally – whether through parliamentary vote or referendum – know full well that the tactic is simply to mire down the process for so long that abandoning Brexit becomes a stronger option.

The reality of May’s attempts have been to present parliament with the only deal available other than no deal.

But sufficient numbers of remain-minded MPs have been willing to play a game of chicken. The result is no deal.

I suspect the longer game is to hope that the UK suffers after no deal for long enough that it hands remain MPs and parties some ‘told you so’ political advantage.

It’s the wilfully dishonest objectors who have put party (and themselves) before country.



Say what you want, but Sumption’s hair looks magnificent in that picture.



Why is LC reflecting on the contents of a fascist pamphlet?



Husband comes home from pub (ruddy faced, flies undone, smelling of beer), tells wife – I’ve decided we’re going on hols
Wife – great, where?
Husband – don’t know
Wife – when?
Husband – don’t know
Wife – how long for?
Husband – don’t know
Wife – so I can’t work out clothes, jabs, currency, time off work or how long?
Husband – errr, but I’ve sorted flights
Wife – ok, how
Husband – I was at the bus stop, taking my usual leak, and I saw a bus with a sign on it that read ‘350 free flights, just ring this number’. So I did. Spoke to a geezer. He said once he gets his pilot’s licence he’ll fly us to wherever we want, free!

Wife – what was his name?

Husband – errr, think he said Stevie Wonder

Wife – head in hands, closes eyes and sighs

….every circus has a clown…..



I think it is quite amusing and hypocritical or Lord S to call Bojo a clown considering that his Lordship is the spitting image of a dodgy Paul Whitehouse character.

Aside from that, looking forward to leaving the ‘Brave New World’ of the EU.



Can’t wait to leave the EU.

There will be carnage. The economy will be fcuked.

Those clowns who vote leave (who mainly have an IQ less than 50) will be screwed.

With my money I will be alright Jack.

Bring it on and let the thickos suffer.


Anonny Non

Hahaha! Yeah. When it all goes tits up I think I am gong to buy Sunderland.



You will still have change from a fiver.




The thickos will be wearing silly little hi-viz vests and protesting at the first sign of the consequences kicking in.


Anonny Non

Not if they are pruning my trees and mucking out my horses they won’t



Lord Sumpton has been too kind to Boris by not adding some more adjectives.


Comments are closed.

Related Stories