There is something just brilliant that during the height of the pandemic she was trailing round after him with colour swatches for the cushion on the whicker sex swing.
Everyone I know who worked in construction/home decoration was unable to work?
Well that's bullshit about construction not being able to work, they were explicitly essential workers from day dot, and a lot of the media got very angry about it at the time.
Residential construction had to stop. I'm not sure what the Number 11 flat is classed as though.
Not by June surely?
I think so, residential construction came back after lockdown ended iirc, commercial construction didn't stop and was classed as essential.
No - our builders and suppliers started work again in May.
So, on the day when a government minister resigns, over the loss of several billion of emergency funds to fraud, all the Lobby hacks care about is that the PM’s wife bought him a cake on his birthday.
We get the media we deserve, as has been shown clearly during the past two years.
Not even a lying weasel with form could claim he was inviting people for a "work event" with a birthday cake sitting in plain view...
The tears must be streaming down the faces of Boris's supporters after this whopper of a gaff
Except that the facts as reported are that the PMs wife bought him the cake as a surprise. No-one was invited, and the cake was given to those who were in the offfice anyway.
Meanwhile, over £4bn of recovery funds given to businesses is unaccounted for…
Fine - he and she could have enjoyed the cake privately. There was no justification for the 30 attendees. If they were in the room at the end of a meeting he could have asked them to leave - in fact they SHOULD have left if the meeting was over. If it was the middle of the meeting then she had no business barging into a govt meeting.
The fraud is getting coverage too, but it is up to the Treasury and Serious Fraud Office - that is what they are there for.
Whatever the fate of Boris in all this I find myself quite uncomfortable with Cummings being able to pursue a personal agenda facilitated by the press. Not at all sure what one can do about that, but the media certainly should be considering whether they're acting wisely in giving him the platform.
I've nothing against Cummings - he seems a bit mad, but certainly has interesting ideas. He gets one vote - so do I.
Cummings is not co-operating properly with the investigation by refusing to be interviewed. It is contemptuous on his part and self-entitled and wrong.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get.
The PM owes voters an explanation. But advisors, civil servants and those with relevant evidence also owe us an obligation to co-operate fully with the investigation. That includes Cummings as well. His refusal to do so should be a bigger issue than it is. He is playing us for fools in the same way as his former boss.
What are your thoughts on the role of the press in this? (My view: We can get past crap PMs, we can get past vindictive loudmouths, but if the press choose to make siren calls on any of their behalves then it becomes harder.)
Given that there’s at least one national who has a deputy editor who was at one of the parties, and stayed silent, not great..
(News to me.) However I was really asking how you fix the unfair and unjust power of the press in these things. Cummings simply gets to air whatever he likes. The press hounding someone whether he's a PM of anyone else seems uncomfortable to me. That they should take a drip-feed from a somewhat discredited source and make it national news for week - really uncomfortable.
Well, the power of the press depends entirely on people doing stuff which the press can report without the fear of libel proceedings, because the people did in fact do the stuff. No stuff, no power. Is this really that difficult?
If I was a student who had been stroked for ten grand for holding a party in my digs I would be very hacked off that Johnson was partying like it's 1999 without so much as a tickle from the old bill...and they were standing right outside his front door
Whatever the fate of Boris in all this I find myself quite uncomfortable with Cummings being able to pursue a personal agenda facilitated by the press. Not at all sure what one can do about that, but the media certainly should be considering whether they're acting wisely in giving him the platform.
I've nothing against Cummings - he seems a bit mad, but certainly has interesting ideas. He gets one vote - so do I.
Cummings is not co-operating properly with the investigation by refusing to be interviewed. It is contemptuous on his part and self-entitled and wrong.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get.
The PM owes voters an explanation. But advisors, civil servants and those with relevant evidence also owe us an obligation to co-operate fully with the investigation. That includes Cummings as well. His refusal to do so should be a bigger issue than it is. He is playing us for fools in the same way as his former boss.
What are your thoughts on the role of the press in this? (My view: We can get past crap PMs, we can get past vindictive loudmouths, but if the press choose to make siren calls on any of their behalves then it becomes harder.)
Given that there’s at least one national who has a deputy editor who was at one of the parties, and stayed silent, not great..
(News to me.) However I was really asking how you fix the unfair and unjust power of the press in these things. Cummings simply gets to air whatever he likes. The press hounding someone whether he's a PM of anyone else seems uncomfortable to me. That they should take a drip-feed from a somewhat discredited source and make it national news for week - really uncomfortable.
Whatever the fate of Boris in all this I find myself quite uncomfortable with Cummings being able to pursue a personal agenda facilitated by the press. Not at all sure what one can do about that, but the media certainly should be considering whether they're acting wisely in giving him the platform.
I've nothing against Cummings - he seems a bit mad, but certainly has interesting ideas. He gets one vote - so do I.
Cummings is not co-operating properly with the investigation by refusing to be interviewed. It is contemptuous on his part and self-entitled and wrong.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get.
The PM owes voters an explanation. But advisors, civil servants and those with relevant evidence also owe us an obligation to co-operate fully with the investigation. That includes Cummings as well. His refusal to do so should be a bigger issue than it is. He is playing us for fools in the same way as his former boss.
What are your thoughts on the role of the press in this? (My view: We can get past crap PMs, we can get past vindictive loudmouths, but if the press choose to make siren calls on any of their behalves then it becomes harder.)
Given that there’s at least one national who has a deputy editor who was at one of the parties, and stayed silent, not great..
(News to me.) However I was really asking how you fix the unfair and unjust power of the press in these things. Cummings simply gets to air whatever he likes. The press hounding someone whether he's a PM of anyone else seems uncomfortable to me. That they should take a drip-feed from a somewhat discredited source and make it national news for week - really uncomfortable.
Whatever the fate of Boris in all this I find myself quite uncomfortable with Cummings being able to pursue a personal agenda facilitated by the press. Not at all sure what one can do about that, but the media certainly should be considering whether they're acting wisely in giving him the platform.
I've nothing against Cummings - he seems a bit mad, but certainly has interesting ideas. He gets one vote - so do I.
Cummings is not co-operating properly with the investigation by refusing to be interviewed. It is contemptuous on his part and self-entitled and wrong.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get.
The PM owes voters an explanation. But advisors, civil servants and those with relevant evidence also owe us an obligation to co-operate fully with the investigation. That includes Cummings as well. His refusal to do so should be a bigger issue than it is. He is playing us for fools in the same way as his former boss.
What are your thoughts on the role of the press in this? (My view: We can get past crap PMs, we can get past vindictive loudmouths, but if the press choose to make siren calls on any of their behalves then it becomes harder.)
I am frankly deeply unimpressed with all these people - press, civil servants, advisors, policemen and God knows how many others - who knew about all of this misbehaviour at the time but said nothing.
This is why misbehaviour happens and those doing it get away with it for so long. Because too many people turn a blind eye and only ever speak up when it is too bloody late and the damage has been done.
They should all be beaten over the head with that Edmund Burke quote.
Whatever the fate of Boris in all this I find myself quite uncomfortable with Cummings being able to pursue a personal agenda facilitated by the press. Not at all sure what one can do about that, but the media certainly should be considering whether they're acting wisely in giving him the platform.
I've nothing against Cummings - he seems a bit mad, but certainly has interesting ideas. He gets one vote - so do I.
Cummings is not co-operating properly with the investigation by refusing to be interviewed. It is contemptuous on his part and self-entitled and wrong.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get.
The PM owes voters an explanation. But advisors, civil servants and those with relevant evidence also owe us an obligation to co-operate fully with the investigation. That includes Cummings as well. His refusal to do so should be a bigger issue than it is. He is playing us for fools in the same way as his former boss.
What are your thoughts on the role of the press in this? (My view: We can get past crap PMs, we can get past vindictive loudmouths, but if the press choose to make siren calls on any of their behalves then it becomes harder.)
Given that there’s at least one national who has a deputy editor who was at one of the parties, and stayed silent, not great..
(News to me.) However I was really asking how you fix the unfair and unjust power of the press in these things. Cummings simply gets to air whatever he likes. The press hounding someone whether he's a PM of anyone else seems uncomfortable to me. That they should take a drip-feed from a somewhat discredited source and make it national news for week - really uncomfortable.
The source may be discredited but everything that has so far been posted has turned out to be true.
Presumably because he was present at some of these parties and so also breaking the law.
Of course he must have been present - how else could he get the information?
If he was not present then everything he says would be hearsay and I would assume that could expose him to libel proceedings.
If I was a student who had been stroked for ten grand for holding a party in my digs I would be very hacked off that Johnson was partying like it's 1999 without so much as a tickle from the old bill...and they were standing right outside his front door
Also another interesting tweet there:
"Some interesting points tonight:
- For first time No 10 not denying there was a party inside Downing Street
- No real claim this was a “work event” this time either
- If work event, why was PM’s wife and interior designer there anyway?"
Whatever the fate of Boris in all this I find myself quite uncomfortable with Cummings being able to pursue a personal agenda facilitated by the press. Not at all sure what one can do about that, but the media certainly should be considering whether they're acting wisely in giving him the platform.
I've nothing against Cummings - he seems a bit mad, but certainly has interesting ideas. He gets one vote - so do I.
Cummings is not co-operating properly with the investigation by refusing to be interviewed. It is contemptuous on his part and self-entitled and wrong.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get.
The PM owes voters an explanation. But advisors, civil servants and those with relevant evidence also owe us an obligation to co-operate fully with the investigation. That includes Cummings as well. His refusal to do so should be a bigger issue than it is. He is playing us for fools in the same way as his former boss.
What are your thoughts on the role of the press in this? (My view: We can get past crap PMs, we can get past vindictive loudmouths, but if the press choose to make siren calls on any of their behalves then it becomes harder.)
Given that there’s at least one national who has a deputy editor who was at one of the parties, and stayed silent, not great..
(News to me.) However I was really asking how you fix the unfair and unjust power of the press in these things. Cummings simply gets to air whatever he likes. The press hounding someone whether he's a PM of anyone else seems uncomfortable to me. That they should take a drip-feed from a somewhat discredited source and make it national news for week - really uncomfortable.
Well, the power of the press depends entirely on people doing stuff which the press can report without the fear of libel proceedings, because the people did in fact do the stuff. No stuff, no power. Is this really that difficult?
You really would have improved your post by leaving out the last sentence.
If I was a student who had been stroked for ten grand for holding a party in my digs I would be very hacked off that Johnson was partying like it's 1999 without so much as a tickle from the old bill...and they were standing right outside his front door
Also another interesting tweet there:
"Some interesting points tonight:
- For first time No 10 not denying there was a party inside Downing Street
- No real claim this was a “work event” this time either
- If work event, why was PM’s wife and interior designer there anyway?"
Surely even the few remaining Boris supporters must agree that this is all so utterly unedifying for this nation?
Blame Cummings for spreading it, or whatever, but the whole thing is as bad as 1992-7 and in many ways a lot worse.
The more this goes on, the more damage brand Boris does to the tories.
There was some ghastly stuff in '92-'97, but it was mostly about Conservative small fry. Aitken was Chief Sec, Hamilton was an under secretary, Mellor was Minister for Fun, but the big beasts mostly behaved themselves, didn't they?
Today's Redfield and Wilton would seem to point to SKS having peaked at 11.59 am last Wednesday as forecast by me 15 mins later.
SKS fans please explain why not.
I’m not a fan of Sir Keir Socialism, but if you want to say Starmer’s defector cost the chance to remove Boris, maybe that was the intent.
That’s my take on the defection: Labour desperately need to keep Johnson in place. Note that the following day Tony Blair was doing his best to downplay and dismiss the Johnson allegations.
COVID was termed a war. The parties were like low level collaboration with the other side, whilst they conducted the main campaign during the day. Imagine the equivalent for Churchill coming public.
Surely even the few remaining Boris supporters must agree that this is all so utterly unedifying for this nation?
Blame Cummings for spreading it, or whatever, but the whole thing is as bad as 1992-7 and in many ways a lot worse.
The more this goes on, the more damage brand Boris does to the tories.
No it isn't, pre 1997 most polls had Labour 10 to 20% ahead.
Tonight's polls from RedfieldWilton and Yougov have Labour just 7% ahead
I remember you crowing about the lack of Labour 10% leads a few weeks ago and how this was proof Labour wouldn't win. Then, when double digit leads appeared, you fell mysteriously silent.
So, no offence, but I'll take your latching onto the latest 7% lead with a wry smile and the gentle reminder to you that we still have 2 years and 5 months until the next General Election. I expect many, many, Labour double digit leads over that time and am prepared to bet with you that they will hit a 15% lead at some point in at least one poll this year.
But I wasn't referring to opinion polling. More the sleaze and just general chaos at the heart of government. This time it's far worse because of what we all had to go through.
Surely even the few remaining Boris supporters must agree that this is all so utterly unedifying for this nation?
Blame Cummings for spreading it, or whatever, but the whole thing is as bad as 1992-7 and in many ways a lot worse.
The more this goes on, the more damage brand Boris does to the tories.
There was some ghastly stuff in '92-'97, but it was mostly about Conservative small fry. Aitken was Chief Sec, Hamilton was an under secretary, Mellor was Minister for Fun, but the big beasts mostly behaved themselves, didn't they?
Though Major's own transgression during that period was only to emerge some years later.
If I was a student who had been stroked for ten grand for holding a party in my digs I would be very hacked off that Johnson was partying like it's 1999 without so much as a tickle from the old bill...and they were standing right outside his front door
Also another interesting tweet there:
"Some interesting points tonight:
- For first time No 10 not denying there was a party inside Downing Street
- No real claim this was a “work event” this time either
- If work event, why was PM’s wife and interior designer there anyway?"
They need to be aces now, or else he’s seen maximum danger off.
Although it’s great to have Norman on Active duty again, 😃I thought we all agreed Parties can’t break this trench warfare stalemate on the back benches. It’s a weapon that has run its course and failed to make the breakthrough. Even pictures or video prove nothing in minds where it’s already proved. Boris has too many supporters believing him strong on policy and delivery, they can’t be further moved by party revelations.
No Norman, it needs something new! What else you got?
Nobody ever agreed that. Gray has yet to report. @TSE says he already knows of at least 4 still-to-come revelations, and you don't want to bet against him on internal tory party matters. The message behind this leak this evening, to Gray and to tory mps, is: think what a twat you'll look if you exonerate/VOC him and then more of this stuff comes out.
*Quietly happy with betting positions*
I agree with you, what Norman is doing is pressuring both Sue and back bench MPs just as you said.
But you still won’t agree with me that it’s not going to work, because enough back bench minds are already made up not to remove Boris over party gate and to give him more time.
Another question I have, why am I trying to help you with your betting position by explaining this, if you won’t listen? 🤔
Enough!
You are helping me immeasurably with my betting position. It is you and people like you who permit me to bet at odds against on outcomes which would be heavily odds on if everyone had their rights. I am grateful.
Surely even the few remaining Boris supporters must agree that this is all so utterly unedifying for this nation?
Blame Cummings for spreading it, or whatever, but the whole thing is as bad as 1992-7 and in many ways a lot worse.
The more this goes on, the more damage brand Boris does to the tories.
There was some ghastly stuff in '92-'97, but it was mostly about Conservative small fry. Aitken was Chief Sec, Hamilton was an under secretary, Mellor was Minister for Fun, but the big beasts mostly behaved themselves, didn't they?
Yes but it was also the sight of the Conservative Party tearing itself apart in public. All discipline went out the window as the different factions ripped into one another.
BBC Scotland doing a thing on the Brewdog people. They appear to be a right pair of wankers, if it were in doubt.
Serves them right for selling cold fizzy beer instead of proper real ale.
I often pass their outlet just off Shaftesbury Avenue. Never been - it looks a really depressing place. And given its Covent Garden/ Holborn location there are just so many better alternatives.
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1485568283818569728 The EU stands by Ukraine. We are firm in our resolve. I am announcing a new financial assistance package, made of emergency loans and grants, to support Ukraine in the medium and long-term.
Which the French are hoping they'll use to buy some of those Rafale fighter planes.
Just looking at the Ukrainian Air Force's state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Air_Force ), and see they've still got a fair few MIG-29. I know they're not rated that highly against the SU-27 range from the same time (though different roles), but the MIG-29 is the best-looking aircraft in the world in a side view.
Minster resigning, indifference to fraud and "schoolboy errors". Very definitely not the image Rishi wants to give. Interesting timing.
Team Rishi just hit back with the birthday party. That's going to get the headlines.
You are probably right but it shouldn't. £4.3bn of losses is really serious, unlike a bloody birthday cake.
Presumably the line will be due to the “urgency of getting funds out” that mistakes were made.
Though I think the constant drip feeding of party stories means story back to Johnson
I think that that excuse is actually fair enough. If you helicopter money into an economy some is going to end up in undesirable places. But it doesn't excuse feeble attempts to recover it afterwards.
Also the deaths consequent on EOTHO remain a vulnerability.
It might be made so but I think the causal link there is just too tenuous. When I went out for my EOTHO meals at the Birkie Inn it was table service only, masks on except when eating and drinking and strict social distancing between tables. Would have been pretty unlucky catching Covid in such circumstances, especially before Omicron or even Delta.
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
Here is the problem for Boris Johnson: his arguments no longer work. His team no longer works. No-one can get any work done around him. Can he make this all work? It must be looking less and less likely. https://twitter.com/juliahobsbawm/status/1485717268478713862
Surely even the few remaining Boris supporters must agree that this is all so utterly unedifying for this nation?
Blame Cummings for spreading it, or whatever, but the whole thing is as bad as 1992-7 and in many ways a lot worse.
The more this goes on, the more damage brand Boris does to the tories.
There was some ghastly stuff in '92-'97, but it was mostly about Conservative small fry. Aitken was Chief Sec, Hamilton was an under secretary, Mellor was Minister for Fun, but the big beasts mostly behaved themselves, didn't they?
Yes but it was also the sight of the Conservative Party tearing itself apart in public. All discipline went out the window as the different factions ripped into one another.
It's the same now.
"Beery, demented futility" as one broadsheet hack put it in a review of a memoir of those times.
And as in '96/7, the Conservatives are having to have the brutal "what are we for now?" row in government, when it's much safer to do it in opposition.
Minster resigning, indifference to fraud and "schoolboy errors". Very definitely not the image Rishi wants to give. Interesting timing.
Team Rishi just hit back with the birthday party. That's going to get the headlines.
You are probably right but it shouldn't. £4.3bn of losses is really serious, unlike a bloody birthday cake.
Presumably the line will be due to the “urgency of getting funds out” that mistakes were made.
Though I think the constant drip feeding of party stories means story back to Johnson
I think that that excuse is actually fair enough. If you helicopter money into an economy some is going to end up in undesirable places. But it doesn't excuse feeble attempts to recover it afterwards.
Also the deaths consequent on EOTHO remain a vulnerability.
It might be made so but I think the causal link there is just too tenuous. When I went out for my EOTHO meals at the Birkie Inn it was table service only, masks on except when eating and drinking and strict social distancing between tables. Would have been pretty unlucky catching Covid in such circumstances, especially before Omicron or even Delta.
It was never social distancing but ventilation that was the true issue - as shown by that superb case study of a restaurant very early on in the epidemic showing the spread of the virus by an air con system. In those circs, it's not a question of whether there was an uptick but how much of one there was. And IIRC the two studies of this issue for EOTHO agreed within a fairly narrow range (factor of 2, which is excellent for such things). It's not convenient at present for HMG to admit this was an issue but it does objectively remain a vulnerability for a politician who identified himself so publicly with it - photo ops and all. I'd be surprised if it does come up, but it is there.
Whatever the fate of Boris in all this I find myself quite uncomfortable with Cummings being able to pursue a personal agenda facilitated by the press. Not at all sure what one can do about that, but the media certainly should be considering whether they're acting wisely in giving him the platform.
I've nothing against Cummings - he seems a bit mad, but certainly has interesting ideas. He gets one vote - so do I.
Cummings is not co-operating properly with the investigation by refusing to be interviewed. It is contemptuous on his part and self-entitled and wrong.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get.
The PM owes voters an explanation. But advisors, civil servants and those with relevant evidence also owe us an obligation to co-operate fully with the investigation. That includes Cummings as well. His refusal to do so should be a bigger issue than it is. He is playing us for fools in the same way as his former boss.
What are your thoughts on the role of the press in this? (My view: We can get past crap PMs, we can get past vindictive loudmouths, but if the press choose to make siren calls on any of their behalves then it becomes harder.)
I am frankly deeply unimpressed with all these people - press, civil servants, advisors, policemen and God knows how many others - who knew about all of this misbehaviour at the time but said nothing.
This is why misbehaviour happens and those doing it get away with it for so long. Because too many people turn a blind eye and only ever speak up when it is too bloody late and the damage has been done.
They should all be beaten over the head with that Edmund Burke quote.
One reason didn't report is that lotsa people think they are above basic social responsibility, including anti-vaxers, although simple stupidity also figures there.
There is something just brilliant that during the height of the pandemic she was trailing round after him with colour swatches for the cushion on the whicker sex swing.
Everyone I know who worked in construction/home decoration was unable to work?
Well that's bullshit about construction not being able to work, they were explicitly essential workers from day dot, and a lot of the media got very angry about it at the time.
Residential construction had to stop. I'm not sure what the Number 11 flat is classed as though.
Not by June surely?
I think so, residential construction came back after lockdown ended iirc, commercial construction didn't stop and was classed as essential.
No - our builders and suppliers started work again in May.
There is something just brilliant that during the height of the pandemic she was trailing round after him with colour swatches for the cushion on the whicker sex swing.
Everyone I know who worked in construction/home decoration was unable to work?
Well that's bullshit about construction not being able to work, they were explicitly essential workers from day dot, and a lot of the media got very angry about it at the time.
Residential construction had to stop. I'm not sure what the Number 11 flat is classed as though.
Not by June surely?
I think so, residential construction came back after lockdown ended iirc, commercial construction didn't stop and was classed as essential.
No - our builders and suppliers started work again in May.
But you weren’t living in the property were you?
No. It was a building site.
So different rules applied to repairs where people were in resident.
Minster resigning, indifference to fraud and "schoolboy errors". Very definitely not the image Rishi wants to give. Interesting timing.
Team Rishi just hit back with the birthday party. That's going to get the headlines.
You are probably right but it shouldn't. £4.3bn of losses is really serious, unlike a bloody birthday cake.
Presumably the line will be due to the “urgency of getting funds out” that mistakes were made.
Though I think the constant drip feeding of party stories means story back to Johnson
I think that that excuse is actually fair enough. If you helicopter money into an economy some is going to end up in undesirable places. But it doesn't excuse feeble attempts to recover it afterwards.
Also the deaths consequent on EOTHO remain a vulnerability.
It might be made so but I think the causal link there is just too tenuous. When I went out for my EOTHO meals at the Birkie Inn it was table service only, masks on except when eating and drinking and strict social distancing between tables. Would have been pretty unlucky catching Covid in such circumstances, especially before Omicron or even Delta.
It was never social distancing but ventilation that was the true issue - as shown by that superb case study of a restaurant very early on in the epidemic showing the spread of the virus by an air con system. In those circs, it's not a question of whether there was an uptick but how much of one there was. And IIRC the two studies of this issue for EOTHO agreed within a fairly narrow range (factor of 2, which is excellent for such things). It's not convenient at present for HMG to admit this was an issue but it does objectively remain a vulnerability for a politician who identified himself so publicly with it - photo ops and all. I'd be surprised if it does come up, but it is there.
We have seen all too clearly that you can make a political story out of almost anything. Osborne and the Gregg pastie remains a classic of the genre.
On ventilation you are completely right. I found, throughout the pandemic that we were very, very bad at discarding things that were found not to work and very, very poor at substituting them with things that were found to do so.
All that handwashing crap and wiping down every seat people sat in. Absolutely pointless. Ventilation very much not so.
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
Have to say that my left eyebrow rather did that Roger Moore thing when I saw that comment.
Minster resigning, indifference to fraud and "schoolboy errors". Very definitely not the image Rishi wants to give. Interesting timing.
Team Rishi just hit back with the birthday party. That's going to get the headlines.
You are probably right but it shouldn't. £4.3bn of losses is really serious, unlike a bloody birthday cake.
Presumably the line will be due to the “urgency of getting funds out” that mistakes were made.
Though I think the constant drip feeding of party stories means story back to Johnson
I think that that excuse is actually fair enough. If you helicopter money into an economy some is going to end up in undesirable places. But it doesn't excuse feeble attempts to recover it afterwards.
Also the deaths consequent on EOTHO remain a vulnerability.
It might be made so but I think the causal link there is just too tenuous. When I went out for my EOTHO meals at the Birkie Inn it was table service only, masks on except when eating and drinking and strict social distancing between tables. Would have been pretty unlucky catching Covid in such circumstances, especially before Omicron or even Delta.
It was never social distancing but ventilation that was the true issue - as shown by that superb case study of a restaurant very early on in the epidemic showing the spread of the virus by an air con system. In those circs, it's not a question of whether there was an uptick but how much of one there was. And IIRC the two studies of this issue for EOTHO agreed within a fairly narrow range (factor of 2, which is excellent for such things). It's not convenient at present for HMG to admit this was an issue but it does objectively remain a vulnerability for a politician who identified himself so publicly with it - photo ops and all. I'd be surprised if it does come up, but it is there.
We have seen all too clearly that you can make a political story out of almost anything. Osborne and the Gregg pastie remains a classic of the genre.
On ventilation you are completely right. I found, throughout the pandemic that we were very, very bad at discarding things that were found not to work and very, very poor at substituting them with things that were found to do so.
All that handwashing crap and wiping down every seat people sat in. Absolutely pointless. Ventilation very much not so.
TBF handwashing/wiping wasn't pointless in those circs - people moving into a lately occupied seat, plastic/metal/varnish being good for virus survival in droplets as shown in the early studies, there was some real scope for mucus transmission in short term - and it did suppress other viruses as well which could be confused with it esp pre testing.
Surely even the few remaining Boris supporters must agree that this is all so utterly unedifying for this nation?
Blame Cummings for spreading it, or whatever, but the whole thing is as bad as 1992-7 and in many ways a lot worse.
The more this goes on, the more damage brand Boris does to the tories.
I'm not bothered by how many parties he attended, but I am annoyed by the fact he was telling everyone else not to do anything at the same time.
Yes. It's the hypocrisy and the cover up that are fatal to Brand Boris. He wants to be liked and will do or say anything to avoid getting into trouble.
Whatever the fate of Boris in all this I find myself quite uncomfortable with Cummings being able to pursue a personal agenda facilitated by the press. Not at all sure what one can do about that, but the media certainly should be considering whether they're acting wisely in giving him the platform.
I've nothing against Cummings - he seems a bit mad, but certainly has interesting ideas. He gets one vote - so do I.
Cummings is not co-operating properly with the investigation by refusing to be interviewed. It is contemptuous on his part and self-entitled and wrong.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get.
The PM owes voters an explanation. But advisors, civil servants and those with relevant evidence also owe us an obligation to co-operate fully with the investigation. That includes Cummings as well. His refusal to do so should be a bigger issue than it is. He is playing us for fools in the same way as his former boss.
Yes, if he is worried about being misquoted etc, ask to be interviewed in the presence of a representative, and/or have it recorded. Either is standard when Investigating.
Minster resigning, indifference to fraud and "schoolboy errors". Very definitely not the image Rishi wants to give. Interesting timing.
Team Rishi just hit back with the birthday party. That's going to get the headlines.
You are probably right but it shouldn't. £4.3bn of losses is really serious, unlike a bloody birthday cake.
It is reckless in the extreme to have given that sort of money out to fraudsters.No ifs no excuses . Sunak needs to resign himself'. All in the hands of gangs and organised crime ,great
It needed to be done fast. I am in admiration how fast they did it. But they need to chase down the fraudsters as best as they can. £4.3bn is too high a loss rate.
Is there nobody left in the Treasury from Brown’s time as C of E that could have warned Sunak not to allow incompetent, cheating bankers to manage the disbursement of the monies?
Minster resigning, indifference to fraud and "schoolboy errors". Very definitely not the image Rishi wants to give. Interesting timing.
Team Rishi just hit back with the birthday party. That's going to get the headlines.
You are probably right but it shouldn't. £4.3bn of losses is really serious, unlike a bloody birthday cake.
Presumably the line will be due to the “urgency of getting funds out” that mistakes were made.
Though I think the constant drip feeding of party stories means story back to Johnson
I think that that excuse is actually fair enough. If you helicopter money into an economy some is going to end up in undesirable places. But it doesn't excuse feeble attempts to recover it afterwards.
Also the deaths consequent on EOTHO remain a vulnerability.
It might be made so but I think the causal link there is just too tenuous. When I went out for my EOTHO meals at the Birkie Inn it was table service only, masks on except when eating and drinking and strict social distancing between tables. Would have been pretty unlucky catching Covid in such circumstances, especially before Omicron or even Delta.
It was never social distancing but ventilation that was the true issue - as shown by that superb case study of a restaurant very early on in the epidemic showing the spread of the virus by an air con system. In those circs, it's not a question of whether there was an uptick but how much of one there was. And IIRC the two studies of this issue for EOTHO agreed within a fairly narrow range (factor of 2, which is excellent for such things). It's not convenient at present for HMG to admit this was an issue but it does objectively remain a vulnerability for a politician who identified himself so publicly with it - photo ops and all. I'd be surprised if it does come up, but it is there.
So is the mask-on-till-you're-at-the-table that we're still doing to this day really the big waste of time that it seems like it must be then, if the issue is ventilation not distancing?
Who is currently coordinating Britain’s actions with respect to Russia - Ukraine, to make sure our diplomatic, military, intelligence, border and financial sanctions arrangements are coherent and aligned? Because I somehow doubt it’s the blonde sausage hider, who is otherwise preoccupied.
BBC Scotland doing a thing on the Brewdog people. They appear to be a right pair of wankers, if it were in doubt.
Serves them right for selling cold fizzy beer instead of proper real ale.
I often pass their outlet just off Shaftesbury Avenue. Never been - it looks a really depressing place. And given its Covent Garden/ Holborn location there are just so many better alternatives.
I did once visit their establishment in Brussels. Not out of choice, got off a train at Brussel Centraal and it was pissing it down. So ran into Brewpuppy over the road. Had a couple of beers, expensive and the food was shit. As soon as the weather moderated I was off to A la Bécasse like a shot (where I had originally planned to eat).
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1485568283818569728 The EU stands by Ukraine. We are firm in our resolve. I am announcing a new financial assistance package, made of emergency loans and grants, to support Ukraine in the medium and long-term.
Which the French are hoping they'll use to buy some of those Rafale fighter planes.
And I'm sure the UK will sell them stuff. I wonder how long it will take the French to realise that cheap EU money will get used to buy UK and US gear?
Well, if the Ukraine want fighter planes, then there's pretty much only two and a half options: the Saab Gripen, the Dassault Rafale. I prefer the Saab, as it's much much better value. Indeed, the Saab is a positive bargain at only about $50m/piece.
(The half option is buying used F-16s, and I understand the Singapore Airforce is looking for purchasers of some early block models. That might work well for the Ukranians.)
Are fighter planes really that useful anymore?
In recent years we seem to have used ours as very expensive launching platforms for various missiles, where they've launched those missiles at fairly considerable distances (unless I've badly misunderstood something I read once). You could achieve the same with ground-based missiles, drones, etc. And then if you want to protect yourself from air assets on the other side, again you might be better off with ground-to-air missiles.
Minster resigning, indifference to fraud and "schoolboy errors". Very definitely not the image Rishi wants to give. Interesting timing.
Team Rishi just hit back with the birthday party. That's going to get the headlines.
You are probably right but it shouldn't. £4.3bn of losses is really serious, unlike a bloody birthday cake.
Presumably the line will be due to the “urgency of getting funds out” that mistakes were made.
Though I think the constant drip feeding of party stories means story back to Johnson
I think that that excuse is actually fair enough. If you helicopter money into an economy some is going to end up in undesirable places. But it doesn't excuse feeble attempts to recover it afterwards.
Also the deaths consequent on EOTHO remain a vulnerability.
It might be made so but I think the causal link there is just too tenuous. When I went out for my EOTHO meals at the Birkie Inn it was table service only, masks on except when eating and drinking and strict social distancing between tables. Would have been pretty unlucky catching Covid in such circumstances, especially before Omicron or even Delta.
It was never social distancing but ventilation that was the true issue - as shown by that superb case study of a restaurant very early on in the epidemic showing the spread of the virus by an air con system. In those circs, it's not a question of whether there was an uptick but how much of one there was. And IIRC the two studies of this issue for EOTHO agreed within a fairly narrow range (factor of 2, which is excellent for such things). It's not convenient at present for HMG to admit this was an issue but it does objectively remain a vulnerability for a politician who identified himself so publicly with it - photo ops and all. I'd be surprised if it does come up, but it is there.
So is the mask-on-till-you're-at-the-table that we're still doing to this day really the big waste of time that it seems like it must be then, if the issue is ventilation not distancing?
Actually, there seems some sense in it a priori. Sitting in one place for a significant while probably will have the same effect with mask or not (FFP3 apart), but simply passing through the rest of the restaurant briefly would benefit from being masked.
I've finally got covid, just done a positive LFT test. Went to cancel my advance train ticket for tomorrow, and found that such train tickets are no longer refundable on the grounds of Covid. The thing is that I would have gone on my trip had it not been for the self isolation rules which as a good citizen I am following. I am not particularly ill, at the moment. If this 'self isolation' is going to continue, people need proper compensation for consequential losses. Otherwise people will just stop following the rules, unless they have an incentive to, ie they have a job they dislike and qualify for fully paid sick leave.
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
There are ways of doing this while still doing a face to face interview.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
West Midlands L47% C29% G10 East Midlands C45% L39% Eastern L44% C34% LD14% NE L53% C31% R11% NW L53% C29% Yorkshire & Humber L48% C31% LD12%
Tories level with Labour in Wales though with RedfieldWilton, 39% each, Tories also up to 29% in Scotland. Tories also still ahead in South East and South West
"An.. MP who has not yet submitted a no confidence letter said the birthday gathering was “clearly social” and “changes things – a lot”.
A frontbencher said those who had been running the numbers of would-be rebels for the prime minister over the weekend were becoming increasingly concerned that Johnson could lose a no confidence vote despite multiple charm offensive calls to wavering MPs.
“People have been telling them over the weekend that they are behind the PM, but of course, that could be people lying,” the source said.
“Ultimately there’s a third of the payroll I could see voting against the PM – if that happens he needs at least half of all backbenchers to back him. That seems pretty unlikely. You can see things get dangerous quickly.”
Surely even the few remaining Boris supporters must agree that this is all so utterly unedifying for this nation?
Blame Cummings for spreading it, or whatever, but the whole thing is as bad as 1992-7 and in many ways a lot worse.
The more this goes on, the more damage brand Boris does to the tories.
I'm not bothered by how many parties he attended, but I am annoyed by the fact he was telling everyone else not to do anything at the same time.
Indeed. With every revelation it becomes ever clearer that the top echelons of government believed the restrictions were unnecessary.
Not really - just that so long as enough other people [edit] followed the restrictions, they themselves didn't need to. Remember that the restrictions were gauged, reportedly, to allow for a certain percentage of violators. Including the restrictors themselves, one now realises.
Edit: and look what happened in the centre of government - they went down with it.
I've finally got covid, just done a positive LFT test. Went to cancel my advance train ticket for tomorrow, and found that such train tickets are no longer refundable on the grounds of Covid. The thing is that I would have gone on my trip had it not been for the self isolation rules which as a good citizen I am following. I am not particularly ill, at the moment. If this 'self isolation' is going to continue, people need proper compensation for consequential losses. Otherwise people will just stop following the rules, unless they have an incentive to, ie they have a job they dislike and qualify for fully paid sick leave.
Best of British, friend. May you continue to not be ill. And yes, you are right.
Whatever the fate of Boris in all this I find myself quite uncomfortable with Cummings being able to pursue a personal agenda facilitated by the press. Not at all sure what one can do about that, but the media certainly should be considering whether they're acting wisely in giving him the platform.
I've nothing against Cummings - he seems a bit mad, but certainly has interesting ideas. He gets one vote - so do I.
Cummings is not co-operating properly with the investigation by refusing to be interviewed. It is contemptuous on his part and self-entitled and wrong.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get.
The PM owes voters an explanation. But advisors, civil servants and those with relevant evidence also owe us an obligation to co-operate fully with the investigation. That includes Cummings as well. His refusal to do so should be a bigger issue than it is. He is playing us for fools in the same way as his former boss.
Yes, if he is worried about being misquoted etc, ask to be interviewed in the presence of a representative, and/or have it recorded. Either is standard when Investigating.
Well, I am sure SG knows even more about investigations, than an NHS consultant does. Either she is happy with her arrangement with Cummings, or she isn't and will say so.
NEW: Responding to PM's birthday bash, Environment Secretary George Eustice says "at the end of the day a small group of staff brought in a birthday cake".
Minster resigning, indifference to fraud and "schoolboy errors". Very definitely not the image Rishi wants to give. Interesting timing.
Team Rishi just hit back with the birthday party. That's going to get the headlines.
You are probably right but it shouldn't. £4.3bn of losses is really serious, unlike a bloody birthday cake.
It is reckless in the extreme to have given that sort of money out to fraudsters.No ifs no excuses . Sunak needs to resign himself'. All in the hands of gangs and organised crime ,great
It needed to be done fast. I am in admiration how fast they did it. But they need to chase down the fraudsters as best as they can. £4.3bn is too high a loss rate.
Is there nobody left in the Treasury from Brown’s time as C of E that could have warned Sunak not to allow incompetent, cheating bankers to manage the disbursement of the monies?
Did someone (with due deference to @rcs1000 ) who had worked at Goldman Sachs really need told??
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
There are ways of doing this while still doing a face to face interview.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
The other problem is that Sue Gray is an employee of a company whose manager I don’t trust nor like and who has shall we say a reputation of protecting number 1 screw anyone or anything else - including Mrs Gray.
In those circumstances I would be doing very little beyond answering exactly what was being asked and directing her as to where the evidence should be and if the emails don’t exist anymore that isn’t my / Mr Cummings fault as they should be being archived for multiple reasons.
West Midlands L47% C29% G10 East Midlands C45% L39% Eastern L44% C34% LD14% NE L53% C31% R11% NW L53% C29% Yorkshire & Humber L48% C31% LD12%
Tories level with Labour in Wales though with RedfieldWilton, 39% each, Tories also up to 29% in Scotland. Tories also still ahead in South East and South West
West Midlands L47% C29% G10 East Midlands C45% L39% Eastern L44% C34% LD14% NE L53% C31% R11% NW L53% C29% Yorkshire & Humber L48% C31% LD12%
Tories level with Labour in Wales though with RedfieldWilton, 39% each, Tories also up to 29% in Scotland. Tories also still ahead in South East and South West
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
There are ways of doing this while still doing a face to face interview.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
The other problem is that Sue Gray is an employee of a company whose manager I don’t trust nor like and who has shall we say a reputation of protecting number 1 screw anyone or anything else - including Mrs Gray.
In those circumstances I would be doing very little beyond answering exactly what was being asked and directing her as to where the evidence should be and if the emails don’t exist anymore that isn’t my / Mr Cummings fault as they should be being archived for multiple reasons.
Are you suggesting Boris would screw Mrs Gray? Now that would be a story. Entirely believable too.
West Midlands L47% C29% G10 East Midlands C45% L39% Eastern L44% C34% LD14% NE L53% C31% R11% NW L53% C29% Yorkshire & Humber L48% C31% LD12%
Tories level with Labour in Wales though with RedfieldWilton, 39% each, Tories also up to 29% in Scotland. Tories also still ahead in South East and South West
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
You sound rather like the marketing consultant on Golgafrincham Ark B who thinks the invention of the wheel cannot go ahead till there is a consensus on what colour it should be. Your experience in banking compliance or whatever is doubtless real and admirable, but it doesn't generalise the way you think it does. Sue Gray knows more about what she is at, than you do.
And your winks and nudges about Sunak cast the very gravest possible doubt on your judgment about, frankly, anything.
Whatever the fate of Boris in all this I find myself quite uncomfortable with Cummings being able to pursue a personal agenda facilitated by the press. Not at all sure what one can do about that, but the media certainly should be considering whether they're acting wisely in giving him the platform.
I've nothing against Cummings - he seems a bit mad, but certainly has interesting ideas. He gets one vote - so do I.
Cummings is not co-operating properly with the investigation by refusing to be interviewed. It is contemptuous on his part and self-entitled and wrong.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get.
The PM owes voters an explanation. But advisors, civil servants and those with relevant evidence also owe us an obligation to co-operate fully with the investigation. That includes Cummings as well. His refusal to do so should be a bigger issue than it is. He is playing us for fools in the same way as his former boss.
What are your thoughts on the role of the press in this? (My view: We can get past crap PMs, we can get past vindictive loudmouths, but if the press choose to make siren calls on any of their behalves then it becomes harder.)
Given that there’s at least one national who has a deputy editor who was at one of the parties, and stayed silent, not great..
I’ll take a random guess that everything that happened in Downing St, that’s now being reported with such overblown and hyperbolic language, was considered at the time to be perfectly normal behaviour in the newsrooms of Fleet St.
So what? Maybe just as true of the Kray Brothers or the Dambusters!
Your point would be well-taken IF the ink-splattered wretches also wrote the laws & regulations they ignored.
Since they did NOT, your point may be less persuasive, electoral or otherwise, than you might be hoping?
West Midlands L47% C29% G10 East Midlands C45% L39% Eastern L44% C34% LD14% NE L53% C31% R11% NW L53% C29% Yorkshire & Humber L48% C31% LD12%
Tories level with Labour in Wales though with RedfieldWilton, 39% each, Tories also up to 29% in Scotland. Tories also still ahead in South East and South West
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
There are ways of doing this while still doing a face to face interview.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
The other problem is that Sue Gray is an employee of a company whose manager I don’t trust nor like and who has shall we say a reputation of protecting number 1 screw anyone or anything else - including Mrs Gray.
In those circumstances I would be doing very little beyond answering exactly what was being asked and directing her as to where the evidence should be and if the emails don’t exist anymore that isn’t my / Mr Cummings fault as they should be being archived for multiple reasons.
Are you suggesting Boris would screw Mrs Gray? Now that would be a story. Entirely believable too.
Boris will stamp on anyone and anything that gets in the way of him staying in No 10. You only have to look at the protect big dog story to see that anyone is fair game if removing them keeps Boris in No 10 for a few more days / minutes.
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
There are ways of doing this while still doing a face to face interview.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
The other problem is that Sue Gray is an employee of a company whose manager I don’t trust nor like and who has shall we say a reputation of protecting number 1 screw anyone or anything else - including Mrs Gray.
In those circumstances I would be doing very little beyond answering exactly what was being asked and directing her as to where the evidence should be and if the emails don’t exist anymore that isn’t my / Mr Cummings fault as they should be being archived for multiple reasons.
Are you suggesting Boris would screw Mrs Gray? Now that would be a story. Entirely believable too.
Boris has already screwed the rest of us, why should she get special treatment?
Comments
The fraud is getting coverage too, but it is up to the Treasury and Serious Fraud Office - that is what they are there for.
Blame Cummings for spreading it, or whatever, but the whole thing is as bad as 1992-7 and in many ways a lot worse.
The more this goes on, the more damage brand Boris does to the tories.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jan/14/james-slack-the-sun-deputy-editor-in-latest-no-10-party-scandal
This is why misbehaviour happens and those doing it get away with it for so long. Because too many people turn a blind eye and only ever speak up when it is too bloody late and the damage has been done.
They should all be beaten over the head with that Edmund Burke quote.
If he was not present then everything he says would be hearsay and I would assume that could expose him to libel proceedings.
"Some interesting points tonight:
- For first time No 10 not denying there was a party inside Downing Street
- No real claim this was a “work event” this time either
- If work event, why was PM’s wife and interior designer there anyway?"
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1485698569894084613?cxt=HHwWioC-3cm-oZ4pAAAA
Tonight's polls from RedfieldWilton and Yougov have Labour just 7% ahead
Hopefully not during a lockdown?
So, no offence, but I'll take your latching onto the latest 7% lead with a wry smile and the gentle reminder to you that we still have 2 years and 5 months until the next General Election. I expect many, many, Labour double digit leads over that time and am prepared to bet with you that they will hit a 15% lead at some point in at least one poll this year.
But I wasn't referring to opinion polling. More the sleaze and just general chaos at the heart of government. This time it's far worse because of what we all had to go through.
It's the same now.
The MIG-29 is an effing beautiful aircraft.
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
https://twitter.com/juliahobsbawm/status/1485717268478713862
And as in '96/7, the Conservatives are having to have the brutal "what are we for now?" row in government, when it's much safer to do it in opposition.
(Yes, the hack is the one you're thinking of.)
https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1485687594298093573
On ventilation you are completely right. I found, throughout the pandemic that we were very, very bad at discarding things that were found not to work and very, very poor at substituting them with things that were found to do so.
All that handwashing crap and wiping down every seat people sat in. Absolutely pointless. Ventilation very much not so.
We're cracking down on the minority that break the rules, to help protect the NHS and save lives.
#StayHome https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1352312653906063360/video/1
I think that the images of that at the time were some of the most horrific war scenes I have ever seen. Charred bodies everywhere.
All the while he knew he had attended multiple such parties himself. https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1485700654354083851/video/1
Went to cancel my advance train ticket for tomorrow, and found that such train tickets are no longer refundable on the grounds of Covid.
The thing is that I would have gone on my trip had it not been for the self isolation rules which as a good citizen I am following. I am not particularly ill, at the moment.
If this 'self isolation' is going to continue, people need proper compensation for consequential losses. Otherwise people will just stop following the rules, unless they have an incentive to, ie they have a job they dislike and qualify for fully paid sick leave.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
"An.. MP who has not yet submitted a no confidence letter said the birthday gathering was “clearly social” and “changes things – a lot”.
A frontbencher said those who had been running the numbers of would-be rebels for the prime minister over the weekend were becoming increasingly concerned that Johnson could lose a no confidence vote despite multiple charm offensive calls to wavering MPs.
“People have been telling them over the weekend that they are behind the PM, but of course, that could be people lying,” the source said.
“Ultimately there’s a third of the payroll I could see voting against the PM – if that happens he needs at least half of all backbenchers to back him. That seems pretty unlikely. You can see things get dangerous quickly.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
Edit: and look what happened in the centre of government - they went down with it.
And yes, you are right.
It was 2pm.
But no denial party happened - he just claims "I don't think this is in same category" as other allegations.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1485723865716338691
"We did much worse..." is a great line, really.
In those circumstances I would be doing very little beyond answering exactly what was being asked and directing her as to where the evidence should be and if the emails don’t exist anymore that isn’t my / Mr Cummings fault as they should be being archived for multiple reasons.
Now that would be a story. Entirely believable too.
And your winks and nudges about Sunak cast the very gravest possible doubt on your judgment about, frankly, anything.
Your point would be well-taken IF the ink-splattered wretches also wrote the laws & regulations they ignored.
Since they did NOT, your point may be less persuasive, electoral or otherwise, than you might be hoping?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25-iJKPA1CA