Best Of

Thanks for the header @Cyclefree. Hope you are staying strong and keeping well

This whole disgraceful episode is caused by people not wanting to be seen agreeing with people they usually disagree with, nor being prepared to upset those they have taken sides with by speaking truth to them. Moral cowardice in the extreme, and something I thought we were all taught at an early age not to do via Nursery tales and fables.

It’s also people not being willing to admit, or even consider, they’ve made a mistake; what if multiculturalism was just a bad idea?

Better than I have been recently. Problems with low white blood cell count. Now looking better. Most of the time I treat this with magnificent contempt, black humour and try to ignore it. Mostly I succeed. But sometimes it really gets me down. Not looking forward to winter TBH - dark days are bad enough without this as well. Also I was given a real ticking off by the nurse for not calling the helpline when I had a fever.

Still, I'm going to Edinburgh next week to see the Andy Galsworthy exhibition, staying at the New Club which I'm told is very lovely and having some lovely lunches with friends. I've lost 16 kgs in recent months so have treated myself to new clothes which I can show off. An ill wind etc.,.

We have had the unfortunate experience in Scotland recently of Lord Bracadale feeling the need to stand down from the Sheku Bayoh inquiry which has thrown it into total chaos with multiple other resignations. This was an inquiry into a death in custody. The reason for this was that he had had meetings with the family of Mr Bayoh, essentially seeking to persuade them not to withdraw from the very long running and expensive process.

It shows a few different things that are relevant here. Firstly, these things are a nightmare to chair. Any concept of a judge merely being fair, impartial and an intelligent inquirer has almost died. Their management has become political. Secondly, we have an ever increasing concept of victors justice. Only those who are deemed to be "onside" are allowed to judge. If I wanted to cause trouble I might mention Hillsborough in this context. This was also the problem with the 2 proposed chairs of the gangs inquiry even although both had a considerable amount of relevant experience. Thirdly, with the greatest of respect to the many victims of these horrors, we seem to be allowing them too much say in the process rather than merely the result. This is unhelpful. Fourthly, we are also allowing too many rights and considerations to those who might be criticised slowing down such inquiries to the point they simply come too late. In the Bayoh case it was objections by the Police Federation that resulted in Lord Bracadale standing down.

I tend to agree on your third point. It arises because those who set up these inquiries/investigations simply do not understand how best to run them and what is really needed in order to give confidence to all relevant stakeholders. There has to be rigorous independence and an utter determination to find out all the facts - no matter who this offends or affects. That is tough to do and those running investigations (I have done thousands, large and small, criminal, civil, regulatory, multi-jurisdictional etc.,) need to have a combination of ruthlessness, clear-eyed focus on the evidence, curiosity and empathy. It is not an easy combination. But it is essential both to give confidence and make sure the inquiry is robust.

What goes wrong is when we allow sentimentality to distract from this and I think something like this has happened here. It is understandable because these girls have been appallingly let down by pretty much everyone. But the answer to that is to have a proper inquiry not burden them with making the decisions about how it is to be conducted. They will have views and they should be listened to but they are witnesses - not investigators and, brutal as it is to say this, they too have a conflict. They cannot and should not be the decision makers. Any more than, say, whistleblowers should be determining how an investigation into a whistleblowing allegation should be run. It is easy to see why this has happened because the endless refusal to look into this properly has infuriated them and everyone else. And so there is this over-correction. But it is not the right way to go about things. And it is not right above all for the victims because only a properly run investigation can do that.

This would have been avoided if the politicians had (a) a proper group which knew how to run investigations (b) had thought about how this one should be run from the start (c) had not made false or over-promises to the victims in order to win PR points and (d) were not acting like cowards or panicking or worrying about Ministers' egos and doing everything at the last minute to get the story off the front pages. They are, as is all too common working backwards from what they would like the result to be and finding a way to get there.

To run such an enquiry requires an iron will, as well.

Plenty of people will be sidling up to the eventual chair at social events or luncheons, to give them vague warnings of how the "wrong" findings or even evidence will affect their (the chair's) chances of jobs, a knighthood, having a grass roots campaign launched against them...

I recall the methodical, "quiet little chats" that were used against journalists and editors carrying the original story.

The people behind that are still around.

An iron will, you say. Maybe also someone who doesn't give a toss about titles, speaks her mind, doesn't suffer fools gladly, actually knows how to do investigations and write reports, only needs sufficient payment to support an expensive gardening habit and, for understandable reasons, will ensure the inquiry is done in record time, etc.

As for the chance to talk to journalists and share stories, well ........

"Grooming gangs" sounds like bunches of marauding barbers.

Let's be clear; these are organised gangs of child rapists, the vast majority of whom are of Pakistani heritage.

Sadly, some on the left don't even want to acknowledge that simple fact.

The facts are that the overwhelming majority of both individuals and gangs are white British.

Certain ethnic groups are over represented among offenders, compared to their (minority) numbers in the general population.

How many white rape gangs' crimes are covered up to avoid cultural offence, or whatever

Jeffrey Epstein? And it does seem to reach the UK, to what degree we are currently unsure.

As I think @DavidL will tell you, since Mrs May (to the considerable horror of some) commanded that all reports be taken seriously and investigated, there has been a tidal wave of cases in courts.

And cases going back decades, in Scotland, are going to involve which ethnicities?

It was *all* being covered up and ignored.

25 years ago now I called at the Scottish bar and, not having a lot of work, did my fair share of Crown junioring, that is helping in the prosecution of cases in the High Court. I was involved in dozens of cases. There were many murders, a lot of drugs and a fair bit of serious violence. I do not recall ever helping out in a rape case. They existed but they were a tiny part of the High Court's business.

Now, 25 years later, I am an Advocate Depute. More than 80% of all cases in the HC are sexual with the vast majority of them involving rapes. It is an incredible change. Part of this is because complaints of such behaviour are taken far more seriously than they have ever been. More resources have been thrown at these cases including the routine use of DNA evidence. The law has been changed to allow corroboration to be much more easily established by distress and recent statements. Police, where certain indicators are present, have gone looking for former partners of the accused who have never come forward, often disclosing a catalogue of shocking crimes that go back decades. So many men who have got away with disgusting, violent and selfish behaviour for decades now find themselves being belatedly held to account.

This is undoubtedly a good thing. There are mutterings now that the pendulum has arguably swung too far. Decisions of the Supreme Court are awaited on that. It is essential that trials are fair. But it is equally essential that it is made clear to these men that their behaviour and attitudes are repugnant and that they will be severely punished for their crimes.

We have had the unfortunate experience in Scotland recently of Lord Bracadale feeling the need to stand down from the Sheku Bayoh inquiry which has thrown it into total chaos with multiple other resignations. This was an inquiry into a death in custody. The reason for this was that he had had meetings with the family of Mr Bayoh, essentially seeking to persuade them not to withdraw from the very long running and expensive process.

It shows a few different things that are relevant here. Firstly, these things are a nightmare to chair. Any concept of a judge merely being fair, impartial and an intelligent inquirer has almost died. Their management has become political. Secondly, we have an ever increasing concept of victors justice. Only those who are deemed to be "onside" are allowed to judge. If I wanted to cause trouble I might mention Hillsborough in this context. This was also the problem with the 2 proposed chairs of the gangs inquiry even although both had a considerable amount of relevant experience. Thirdly, with the greatest of respect to the many victims of these horrors, we seem to be allowing them too much say in the process rather than merely the result. This is unhelpful. Fourthly, we are also allowing too many rights and considerations to those who might be criticised slowing down such inquiries to the point they simply come too late. In the Bayoh case it was objections by the Police Federation that resulted in Lord Bracadale standing down.

I tend to agree on your third point. It arises because those who set up these inquiries/investigations simply do not understand how best to run them and what is really needed in order to give confidence to all relevant stakeholders. There has to be rigorous independence and an utter determination to find out all the facts - no matter who this offends or affects. That is tough to do and those running investigations (I have done thousands, large and small, criminal, civil, regulatory, multi-jurisdictional etc.,) need to have a combination of ruthlessness, clear-eyed focus on the evidence, curiosity and empathy. It is not an easy combination. But it is essential both to give confidence and make sure the inquiry is robust.

What goes wrong is when we allow sentimentality to distract from this and I think something like this has happened here. It is understandable because these girls have been appallingly let down by pretty much everyone. But the answer to that is to have a proper inquiry not burden them with making the decisions about how it is to be conducted. They will have views and they should be listened to but they are witnesses - not investigators and, brutal as it is to say this, they too have a conflict. They cannot and should not be the decision makers. Any more than, say, whistleblowers should be determining how an investigation into a whistleblowing allegation should be run. It is easy to see why this has happened because the endless refusal to look into this properly has infuriated them and everyone else. And so there is this over-correction. But it is not the right way to go about things. And it is not right above all for the victims because only a properly run investigation can do that.

This would have been avoided if the politicians had (a) a proper group which knew how to run investigations (b) had thought about how this one should be run from the start (c) had not made false or over-promises to the victims in order to win PR points and (d) were not acting like cowards or panicking or worrying about Ministers' egos and doing everything at the last minute to get the story off the front pages. They are, as is all too common working backwards from what they would like the result to be and finding a way to get there.

We have had the unfortunate experience in Scotland recently of Lord Bracadale feeling the need to stand down from the Sheku Bayoh inquiry which has thrown it into total chaos with multiple other resignations. This was an inquiry into a death in custody. The reason for this was that he had had meetings with the family of Mr Bayoh, essentially seeking to persuade them not to withdraw from the very long running and expensive process.

It shows a few different things that are relevant here. Firstly, these things are a nightmare to chair. Any concept of a judge merely being fair, impartial and an intelligent inquirer has almost died. Their management has become political. Secondly, we have an ever increasing concept of victors justice. Only those who are deemed to be "onside" are allowed to judge. If I wanted to cause trouble I might mention Hillsborough in this context. This was also the problem with the 2 proposed chairs of the gangs inquiry even although both had a considerable amount of relevant experience. Thirdly, with the greatest of respect to the many victims of these horrors, we seem to be allowing them too much say in the process rather than merely the result. This is unhelpful. Fourthly, we are also allowing too many rights and considerations to those who might be criticised slowing down such inquiries to the point they simply come too late. In the Bayoh case it was objections by the Police Federation that resulted in Lord Bracadale standing down.

I tend to agree on your third point. It arises because those who set up these inquiries/investigations simply do not understand how best to run them and what is really needed in order to give confidence to all relevant stakeholders. There has to be rigorous independence and an utter determination to find out all the facts - no matter who this offends or affects. That is tough to do and those running investigations (I have done thousands, large and small, criminal, civil, regulatory, multi-jurisdictional etc.,) need to have a combination of ruthlessness, clear-eyed focus on the evidence, curiosity and empathy. It is not an easy combination. But it is essential both to give confidence and make sure the inquiry is robust.

What goes wrong is when we allow sentimentality to distract from this and I think something like this has happened here. It is understandable because these girls have been appallingly let down by pretty much everyone. But the answer to that is to have a proper inquiry not burden them with making the decisions about how it is to be conducted. They will have views and they should be listened to but they are witnesses - not investigators and, brutal as it is to say this, they too have a conflict. They cannot and should not be the decision makers. Any more than, say, whistleblowers should be determining how an investigation into a whistleblowing allegation should be run. It is easy to see why this has happened because the endless refusal to look into this properly has infuriated them and everyone else. And so there is this over-correction. But it is not the right way to go about things. And it is not right above all for the victims because only a properly run investigation can do that.

This would have been avoided if the politicians had (a) a proper group which knew how to run investigations (b) had thought about how this one should be run from the start (c) had not made false or over-promises to the victims in order to win PR points and (d) were not acting like cowards or panicking or worrying about Ministers' egos and doing everything at the last minute to get the story off the front pages. They are, as is all too common working backwards from what they would like the result to be and finding a way to get there.

To run such an enquiry requires an iron will, as well.

Plenty of people will be sidling up to the eventual chair at social events or luncheons, to give them vague warnings of how the "wrong" findings or even evidence will affect their (the chair's) chances of jobs, a knighthood, having a grass roots campaign launched against them...

I recall the methodical, "quiet little chats" that were used against journalists and editors carrying the original story.

The people behind that are still around.

The Covid enquiries and the endless questions from the respective groups for 'Justice' drive me mad. I am sure that many feel very passionately that their loved ones died because we didn't lock down fast enough, or because X or Y or Z. Having them asking their 'gotcha' questions is not aiding the process of working out what happened and what to do in future. Because of the adversarial nature of it all, those giving evidence clearly feel that they are 'on trial' and this is not helping anybody.

Morning all

I enjoy wittering on about the Conservative Party - I know it annoys the "old school" Tories who proliferate on here.

The party is approaching a crossroads (not as in a fictional suburban Birmingham hotel). It's quite clear there is a niche (not perhaps a large one but one nonetheless) for a party determined to talk about sound finances and being supportive of business and aspiration (the details on that to follow presumably).

The corollary of that is recognising some form of immigration (specialist, professional, skilled but not exclusively) is needed to foster economic growth, raise tax revenues and cover our spending commitments whether they be welfare, defence or debt interest repayments. That's not to advocate uncontrolled mass immigration by any stretch but acknowledging there is a strong economic argument for importing (as well as developing internally) the skills required to grow the economy.

In the current mood, such a party might not poll well but might have the advantage of sounding coherent - sometimes you need to say what's right, not necessarily what people want to hear (Stodge's Eleventh Law of Politics).

The other side of that is looking at other parties realistically and seeing with whom these objectives can best be advanced or achieved in any future Parliament without an overall majority for any one party.

Theer are three options - first, move closer to Reform and accept the likely role of being a junior partner in a Government led by Farage and Tice. That means encouraging your voters to vote Reform in any seat where the Conservatives have no chance and Reform do. Second, move away from Reform and toward other parties as part of a broad anti-Reform movement - encourage your voters to vote tactically in any constituency where the Conservatives have no chance against Reform and choosing the party (whichever it may be) most likely to stop Reform.

The third option is to do neither and adopt the good old Alliance policy of equidistance. If you want sensible Conservative policies, vote Conservative would seem the obvious approach. There's an old adage "to thine own self be true" but first you have to decide what that "own self" really is and in what it believes.

This is the challenge which afflicted the Alliance and the Lib Dems from the mid 1980s to 2010 - in an unstable and potentially chaotic post-election Parliament, you might be the kingmaker - on whose head do you put the crown?

Thoughts and prayers for all those PBers who thought the China spy story would bring down Starmer.

Rishi Sunak only politician to see witness statement in China spy case

Statement from security adviser, viewed by then prime minister, did not describe China as enemy

Rishi Sunak was the only politician to see a witness statement by the deputy national security adviser at the centre of controversy about the collapse of a case against two British men accused of spying for China.

According to letters sent to the joint committee on the national security strategy, the statement from Matthew Collins in December 2023, which was seen by the then prime minister and his advisers, did not describe China as an enemy, another key element of the case.

The letters also set out that by this point, the start of the prosecution process, both police and prosecutors were told that Collins would not call China an enemy as this was not government policy.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/24/rishi-sunak-only-politician-see-witness-statement-china-spy-case

Almost exactly as predicted.

..Drafts of a statement provided to DNSA included the term 'enemy' but he removed this term from the final draft as it did not reflect government policy."
Collins said he sent a final version of the draft to the prime minister at the time, Rishi Sunak, and his special advisers.
He said at this point, police were told he "could not call China an 'enemy' as this did not reflect government policy"...

I mean, I get it.
Starmer is pretty crap.

But the continual attempts to blame him for the previous government's policy blunders and controversies are getting a bit wearing.

I find it increasingly bizarre that so many on here return to the question of Brexit at every opportunity, even if the links require the most tortuous of reasoning. Anyone who persuades themselves that it is still Brexit that is driving Reform or their voters is deluding themselves. The country has moved on, Brexit is neither the land of milk and honey promised or the disaster predicted. We have so many real and profound problems to address, not only economic (although they are particularly acute) but also cultural and social.

This is true and not true. Brexit as a distinct issue isn't driving Reform voters, it's in the past, however Reform voters were overwhelmingly Leavers (if old enough) and the set of attitudes, preoccupations and concerns (centred around immigration but not only that) which led them to vote for Brexit is pushing them towards Reform now. If (god forbid) Farage wins the next GE it will largely be because he's persuaded most of Johnson's 2019 Get Brexit Done coalition to come out and vote for him. "You told them what you wanted, they didn't listen, tell them again and this time for real".

Obviously many who voted for Brexit are now voting for Reform but I really don't believe Brexit itself has much to do with it. Their current obsessions are
(1) immigration, especially illegal immigration which they think is much bigger than it actually is, as opposed to legal migration which is vastly bigger than they appreciate.

(2) Frustration that the government in particular but the public sector in general is simply not providing the services that they want, whether that is hospital or GP treatment in a sensible time, education for their kids, care for elderly relatives, decent roads, etc etc.

(3) A widely held perception that Labour has proven to be every bit as "useless" as the Tories in failing to address these problems and that the mainstream parties are simply not listening to people like them. Much of this is because they are being persuaded that there are simplistic and easy solutions when there is not but there is also enough truth in this to scare the mainstream parties.

Farage is using the same techniques and, well, lies, to build up these perceptions as he did Brexit. Its what he does. But unless and until so many people can simply move on from Brexit they will not get an audience from these supporters. This is so self evident even Starmer got it although I see that Reeves is back falling into the trap again.

I agree with most of that. My point is more that the Leave v Remain political identity divide forged by Brexit is still salient in our politics. It's the former pool where Farage is fishing and if he wins it will be off the back of a voter coalition looking very similar to Johnson's in 2019.

It wasn't leave v remain, it was the not doing that well versus the well off and nothing has changed...

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/study-finds-wealthy-more-likely-to-have-voted-for-brexit

Messier even than that;

From that press release:

People living in left-behind areas were more likely to support Brexit than those living in prosperous areas. The gains of Brexit were perceived to be greater in areas of the country that had experienced economic decline. But within those areas, given people's preferences, we show that wealthier individuals were more likely to vote for Brexit, and poorer individuals were more likely to vote for Remain.

Which sort of fits the Red Wall stereotype. Also the Eastern Wall aspect of the Reform map. Kent and Essex aren't poor, but they are distinctly second-tier Home Counties.

A tricky tangle of problems to solve, especially since many of the things that might help economically (more tax for more public spending; becoming more like London/Manchester) are culturally taboo.