Best Of

Andrew is damned by the fact that he paid £12m in damages to Victoria Giuffre. An innocent man would not have done so.

It was a civil settlement, no criminal charges were ever brought in that case

It doesn't matter. For most reasonable people it would indicate some admission of moral, if not legal, guilt

So what? Moral guilt has sod all to do with the evidence needed to charge with a criminal offence by the CPS or DAs offices.

Andrew does no royal duties and has no royal titles anyway so what public opinion thinks of him now is irrelevant

Do you ever think of the victims in all this?

Hmmm

Churchwarden linked to foreign-born billionaire is behind £200k Reform gift

The man whose firm made the donations will not discuss where the money came from, nor his ties to wealthy Farage allies who may not hold citizenship

A churchwarden from Potters Bar who works for the family of a highly secretive, Kazakhstan-born billionaire can be revealed as the man behind £200,000 of donations to Reform UK.

John Richard Simpson is a 59-year-old conveyancer whose parish website describes him as an “experienced” and “dedicated” Anglican lay leader.

He is the owner of Interior Architecture Landscape Limited, which made seven payments to Nigel Farage’s party last summer. The firm, which was originally owned via a trust in the British Virgin Islands, is so small it does not have to file professionally audited accounts. It did not display any contact details until recently and was almost wound up by HMRC after a tax dispute last year.

Simpson, known locally as Bill, “does conveyancing, but is not a fully qualified solicitor”, according to a Facebook post by a neighbour in the Hertfordshire town. There is no evidence he has any background in interior design. He has no known political affiliation or background in activism.

He would not discuss the source of the funds donated to Reform last week.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/churchwarden-linked-to-foreign-born-billionaire-is-behind-200k-reform-gift-j06pb7w82

Today’s Rawnsley:

Never mind the quality, feel the width. This is the rule when it comes to defectors from the Tories to Reform. Mr Farage is gambling that he gains more from the impression of momentum supplied by defectors than he loses from the damage they do to his claim to represent a clean break with the “establishment” parties.

His rivals think he is making a mistake in allowing his party to turn into a recycling centre for Tory waste products. Labour sniffs an opportunity. Labour people are encouraged by Reform’s choice of candidate, Matthew Goodwin, whose politics are sufficiently noxious to have received the endorsement of the far-right agitator, Tommy Robinson.

[For the Tories, these] departures create space for Mrs Badenoch to broaden her party’s appeal and rebuild the Conservatives around their traditional, often highly successful, calling cards with the electorate. They have an advantage over both Labour and Reform when voters are asked which party they prefer on taxes, the national debt, investment and job creation.

There’s a gap in the market for a centre-right party that appeals to voters who think Labour is overtaxing them while also believing that Reform can’t be trusted with the economy. It is this gap that is addressed by Prosper UK, the new grouping launched by Sir Andy Street…and Baroness Ruth Davidson. Their prospectus highlights fiscal responsibility, encouraging enterprise and free trade: quintessential Tory themes with a past record of appealing to many Britons. Yet rather than welcome their contribution, Mrs Badenoch foolishly chose to blow a raspberry at them. The popping sound you can hear is the champagne corks flying at Lib Dem campaign HQ.

Today’s Rawnsley:

Never mind the quality, feel the width. This is the rule when it comes to defectors from the Tories to Reform. Mr Farage is gambling that he gains more from the impression of momentum supplied by defectors than he loses from the damage they do to his claim to represent a clean break with the “establishment” parties.

His rivals think he is making a mistake in allowing his party to turn into a recycling centre for Tory waste products. Labour sniffs an opportunity. Labour people are encouraged by Reform’s choice of candidate, Matthew Goodwin, whose politics are sufficiently noxious to have received the endorsement of the far-right agitator, Tommy Robinson.

[For the Tories, these] departures create space for Mrs Badenoch to broaden her party’s appeal and rebuild the Conservatives around their traditional, often highly successful, calling cards with the electorate. They have an advantage over both Labour and Reform when voters are asked which party they prefer on taxes, the national debt, investment and job creation.

There’s a gap in the market for a centre-right party that appeals to voters who think Labour is overtaxing them while also believing that Reform can’t be trusted with the economy. It is this gap that is addressed by Prosper UK, the new grouping launched by Sir Andy Street…and Baroness Ruth Davidson. Their prospectus highlights fiscal responsibility, encouraging enterprise and free trade: quintessential Tory themes with a past record of appealing to many Britons. Yet rather than welcome their contribution, Mrs Badenoch foolishly chose to blow a raspberry at them. The popping sound you can hear is the champagne corks flying at Lib Dem campaign HQ.

Rawnsley on form. He's correct I think that a small gap has opened for them and if they get rid of Reform-lite Kemi they could get back in the reckoning

Has Starmer really though through his statement that Andrew M-W should assist the US authorities?

Not opposed to this if the US authorities require this.

But if Andrew should answer questions then so should Peter Mandelson who appears to have -

- lied about his knowledge of Epstein's behaviour;
- received money from a man involved in and convicted of sex trafficking (why?);
- used Epstein as some sort of adviser on government deals (why?),
- failed to be transparent about any of this to the relevant Parliamentary and Cabinet bodies

and who for part of this period was a senior member of the government and later U.K. ambassador to the US.

IMO the questions for Mandelson are just as serious and they are ones which ought to be asked by the authorities here. He is still a member of the legislature here.

Interesting to hear Polanski discussing drugs policy this morning:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8g7ymq959o

I admit to a dilemma of sorts on this - there's part of me that says there are only two coherent positions - legalisation or prohibition. In other words, define what drugs are or should be acceptable and legalise them and for all others complete prohibition.

The other side of this is the longer term impacts of drug abuse which seem as cumulative and damage as long term alcohol abuse but nobody suggests we ban alcohol (though I note consumption is falling).

The trouble is the debate gets shut down before it starts but the truth is we cannot resource a wholly prohibitive stance - we know people take illegal substances and become addicted to them. As an aside, there's also the not inconsiderable issue of addiction to prescription medication such as painkillers and tranquillisers which is rarely discussed.

The fall in alcohol drinkers is quite sharp. End of 2024, 19% of Brits hadn't drunk alcohol all year. By the end of last year, that was at 24% - almost 1 in 4 not touching alcohol.

Seems not to be such a big thing with Da Yoof. Although, with his pewter tankard behind the bar of his local, Farage (and his MAGA chums) will probably point to it being proof of the Islamification of Britain...

Annual deaths in the UK:

From smoking 80,000
From alcohol 10,000
From heroin 1,500

The debate on legalising drugs is highly emotional. "Heroin - oh my god!!" That's why, above, I suggested a rational framework.

Professor David Nutt, Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, was fired in 2009 by then Home Secretary Alan Johnson, for taking an evidence-based approach to drug classification.

He published a lecture stating that alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy, and cannabis. He also publicly criticised the government's decision to reclassify cannabis from Class C back to Class B, arguing the move was politically motivated and not supported by scientific evidence.

Finally In a research paper, Nutt compared the risks of taking ecstasy to the risks of horse riding (which he termed "equasy"), arguing that the latter was statistically more dangerous.

Meanwhile cocaine is sniffed in the toilets of parliament.
There is a lot of hypocrisy in the debate on legalising drugs.
I'm glad that Polanski is up front about it. The more I hear him, the more I admire him.