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?
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.
Talking of controlling matters, have you seen the story in the Guardian about Dr Konstancja Duff. Another humdinger of an arrest and strip search at the notorious Stoke Newington nick, oh and the subsequent failed prosecution and civil action between the Professor and the Met.
Little sympathy on here I would wager. She looks a bit "Me too, woke".
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
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.
I'm beginning to wonder that he really has finally had it now, actually. The reports tonight that his allies are now genuinely worried about losing a vote of no confidence sound quite plausible, to me.
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.
I am thinking of my time working as an agent of the National Clinical Assessment Service, on various forms of medical misbehaviour. Much of which potentially involved suspensions or termination, with risks running into millions of pounds, and tremendous reputation allows damage.
We shall see if her report stands scrutiny shortly enough, I suppose. Publishing a heavily redacted version will just be chucking fuel on the fire.
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
That should be even more newsworthy than parties. It’s about £73 for every person in the UK! Lay Sunak!
In which case he hasn’t said much publicly even though a back bencher himself, and yesterday said she had to fill a form in to get it investigated by the party. 😕
I like this for the tag Tories That Are Helping as much as anything.
Believe it or not, he was the Tory candidate who came closest to winning Birmingham Erdington for the Conservatives in 1983 when he lost by just 231 votes.
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.
I am thinking of my time working as an agent of the National Clinical Assessment Service, on various forms of medical misbehaviour. Much of which potentially involved suspensions or termination, with risks running into millions of pounds, and tremendous reputation allows damage.
We shall see if her report stands scrutiny shortly enough, I suppose. Publishing a heavily redacted version will just be chucking fuel on the fire.
Having no experience of this myself, which in your (and cyclefree's) view is better?
1) Heavily redacted full report (junior staff personal details etc) 2) A detailed summary, with the full report kept confidential
I have a weird fascination with FOI responses and the inconsistent approach to this. Fun reading between the lines.
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
The Treasury "appears to have no knowledge or little interest in the consequences of fraud to our economy or our society", said Lord Agnew, resigning today at dispatch box.
Think how much tax can be cut with that 🤑 though there is also option to use it on hospital, schools or defence.
This was always going to become a story at some point - awful time for Rishi if it becomes a story right now. It’s currently keeping Boris latest party revelation off the top of the Sky page headlines. 😕
And there’s more to come, as this has yet to grow into a big story too, though it’s day will come?
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
That should be even more newsworthy than parties. It’s about £73 for every person in the UK! Lay Sunak!
I suspect it's a lot more than £73 per person, because the Treasury estimate of £4.9 billion is likely to prove ridiculously low. That's certainly what the full NAO report hints at.
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
I got a bounce back loan for my Private Practice, which was effectively suspended for 6 months. It took about 15 minutes and was completely self certified to get a generous 5 figure interest free loan for a year. I shall pay it off next month, as I am fairly flush now. Mine was legit, but I can see it was way open to fraud, and easy to extend the term.
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
Reeves is going to fight against being one of the useless spend-monkeys like Brown. I suspect it'll just be a token thing though.
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
The Treasury "appears to have no knowledge or little interest in the consequences of fraud to our economy or our society", said Lord Agnew, resigning today at dispatch box.
Think how much tax can be cut with that 🤑 though there is also option to use it on hospital, schools or defence.
This was always going to become a story at some point - awful time for Rishi if it becomes a story right now. It’s currently keeping Boris latest party revelation off the top of the Sky page headlines. 😕
And there’s more to come, as this has yet to grow into a big story too, though it’s day will come?
Will be interesting to observe if pro Boris media go after Sunak as a means of helping Boris position…
From a political betting point of view there is just too much going on at once!
Relative to the amount of money spent on track and trace / furlough it’s small beer and it kept a lot of businesses going that might otherwise have died.
Yes more should be being done about fraud but Lord Agnew seems to be complaining that someone didn’t do the work he seems to have been responsible for
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
I got a bounce back loan for my Private Practice, which was effectively suspended for 6 months. It took about 15 minutes and was completely self certified to get a generous 5 figure interest free loan for a year. I shall pay it off next month, as I am fairly flush now. Mine was legit, but I can see it was way open to fraud, and easy to extend the term.
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Corroboration. It isn't required in English law outwith a limited set of circumstances. A jury can convict on the evidence of one adult saying "I saw x do y."
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
That should be even more newsworthy than parties. It’s about £73 for every person in the UK! Lay Sunak!
I suspect it's a lot more than £73 per person, because the Treasury estimate of £4.9 billion is likely to prove ridiculously low. That's certainly what the full NAO report hints at.
Quite apart from the fraud, how many legit loans will not be repaid when businesses go broke?
I like this for the tag Tories That Are Helping as much as anything.
Believe it or not, he was the Tory candidate who came closest to winning Birmingham Erdington for the Conservatives in 1983 when he lost by just 231 votes.
Tim (formerly of this Parish) sums it up perfectly here
ForgottenGenius @ExStrategist · 21s The only time he didn't have a party was when he was on a ventilator
Was he on a ventilator? Seems unlikely.
HiFlo or CPAP I reckon. If ventilated for covid it is usually a couple of weeks.
That was my supposition, but people seem keen to bandy the idea that he was (a) near death and (b) ventilated. On the latter, it maybe not appreciating the difference.
I like this for the tag Tories That Are Helping as much as anything.
Believe it or not, he was the Tory candidate who came closest to winning Birmingham Erdington for the Conservatives in 1983 when he lost by just 231 votes.
Although as Maggie would have put it, that was 14,000 votes for her, 699 for him
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
I got a bounce back loan for my Private Practice, which was effectively suspended for 6 months. It took about 15 minutes and was completely self certified to get a generous 5 figure interest free loan for a year. I shall pay it off next month, as I am fairly flush now. Mine was legit, but I can see it was way open to fraud, and easy to extend the term.
Did you spend it on a party?
I paid my secretary for 6 months as she wasn't eligible for furlough. Some went on my Corporation tax bill too. The reason that I am flush now is this year's tax bill is negligible. The joys of paying 8 months in arrears.
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
TSE of course speaking as one of those key swing voters who voted Tory in 2010 and 2015 but LD in 2019 as they hated Brexit but loved austerity!! No better sage than TSE for Tories to keep the redwall
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
TSE of course speaking as one of those key swing voters who voted Tory in 2010 and 2015 but LD in 2019 as they hated Brexit but loved austerity!!
You really are full of shit, I've told you many times, I live in a constituency where the Tories are nowhere, and I ended up with an appalling Corbynista as Labour candidate then MP, I voted tactically to stop the Corbynites.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 22m Former cabinet minister tells me majority of MPs want PM to get a grip, but it becoming harder as chaos consumes No 10 w no sign of stabilisation. But, PM helped by no obvious successor, which creates some inertia. That said, the attrition needs to stop. Move in 10 @SkyNews 2/
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
You say that, but I bet there will be some faces sticking around if Boris goes, there have the be some place fillers. The Scottish and Welsh secretaries will probably be fine, continuity in the provinces as Truss might say.
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
TSE of course speaking as one of those key swing voters who voted Tory in 2010 and 2015 but LD in 2019 as they hated Brexit but loved austerity!!
You really are full of shit, I've told you many times, I live in a constituency where the Tories are nowhere, and I ended up with an appalling Corbynista as Labour candidate then MP, I voted tactically to stop the Corbynites.
Brexit nor austerity had anything to do with it.
You managed to vote Tory in the same seat in 2010 and 2015 without any problem when Dave and George were the party leadership
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 22m Former cabinet minister tells me majority of MPs want PM to get a grip, but it becoming harder as chaos consumes No 10 w no sign of stabilisation. But, PM helped by no obvious successor, which creates some inertia. That said, the attrition needs to stop. Move in 10 @SkyNews 2/
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
TSE of course speaking as one of those key swing voters who voted Tory in 2010 and 2015 but LD in 2019 as they hated Brexit but loved austerity!!
You really are full of shit, I've told you many times, I live in a constituency where the Tories are nowhere, and I ended up with an appalling Corbynista as Labour candidate then MP, I voted tactically to stop the Corbynites.
Brexit nor austerity had anything to do with it.
You managed to vote Tory in the same seat in 2010 and 2015 without any problem when Dave and George were the party leadership
I didn't live in Sheffield Hallam in 2010, so you're wrong again.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 22m Former cabinet minister tells me majority of MPs want PM to get a grip, but it becoming harder as chaos consumes No 10 w no sign of stabilisation. But, PM helped by no obvious successor, which creates some inertia. That said, the attrition needs to stop. Move in 10 @SkyNews 2/
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
You say that, but I bet there will be some faces sticking around if Boris goes, there have the be some place fillers. The Scottish and Welsh secretaries will probably be fine, continuity in the provinces as Truss might say.
Well MacArthur let Hirohito and others remain in office after the end of WWII, mostly as figureheads.
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
The Treasury "appears to have no knowledge or little interest in the consequences of fraud to our economy or our society", said Lord Agnew, resigning today at dispatch box.
Think how much tax can be cut with that 🤑 though there is also option to use it on hospital, schools or defence.
This was always going to become a story at some point - awful time for Rishi if it becomes a story right now. It’s currently keeping Boris latest party revelation off the top of the Sky page headlines. 😕
And there’s more to come, as this has yet to grow into a big story too, though it’s day will come?
Will be interesting to observe if pro Boris media go after Sunak as a means of helping Boris position…
From a political betting point of view there is just too much going on at once!
Relative to the amount of money spent on track and trace / furlough it’s small beer and it kept a lot of businesses going that might otherwise have died.
Yes more should be being done about fraud but Lord Agnew seems to be complaining that someone didn’t do the work he seems to have been responsible for
What were the test and trace costs, none of it really fraud though?
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
The Treasury "appears to have no knowledge or little interest in the consequences of fraud to our economy or our society", said Lord Agnew, resigning today at dispatch box.
Think how much tax can be cut with that 🤑 though there is also option to use it on hospital, schools or defence.
This was always going to become a story at some point - awful time for Rishi if it becomes a story right now. It’s currently keeping Boris latest party revelation off the top of the Sky page headlines. 😕
And there’s more to come, as this has yet to grow into a big story too, though it’s day will come?
Will be interesting to observe if pro Boris media go after Sunak as a means of helping Boris position…
From a political betting point of view there is just too much going on at once!
Relative to the amount of money spent on track and trace / furlough it’s small beer and it kept a lot of businesses going that might otherwise have died.
Yes more should be being done about fraud but Lord Agnew seems to be complaining that someone didn’t do the work he seems to have been responsible for
What were the test and trace costs, none of it really fraud though?
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Corroboration. It isn't required in English law outwith a limited set of circumstances. A jury can convict on the evidence of one adult saying "I saw x do y."
"A creature that gestates inside a human host - these are your words - and has concentrated acid for blood."
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
You say that, but I bet there will be some faces sticking around if Boris goes, there have the be some place fillers. The Scottish and Welsh secretaries will probably be fine, continuity in the provinces as Truss might say.
Well MacArthur let Hirohito and others remain in office after the end of WWII, mostly as figureheads.
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.
Cheers. At the moment its just a mild flu, would normally have just tried to carry on as normal and take lemsip every few hours etc. But having had the positive test result and being forced to isolate in the living room, its all suddenly come in to focus.
Quite a moment when the second line came up on the LFT test after all this time.
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
You say that, but I bet there will be some faces sticking around if Boris goes, there have the be some place fillers. The Scottish and Welsh secretaries will probably be fine, continuity in the provinces as Truss might say.
Well MacArthur let Hirohito and others remain in office after the end of WWII, mostly as figureheads.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 22m Former cabinet minister tells me majority of MPs want PM to get a grip, but it becoming harder as chaos consumes No 10 w no sign of stabilisation. But, PM helped by no obvious successor, which creates some inertia. That said, the attrition needs to stop. Move in 10 @SkyNews 2/
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
TSE of course speaking as one of those key swing voters who voted Tory in 2010 and 2015 but LD in 2019 as they hated Brexit but loved austerity!!
You really are full of shit, I've told you many times, I live in a constituency where the Tories are nowhere, and I ended up with an appalling Corbynista as Labour candidate then MP, I voted tactically to stop the Corbynites.
Brexit nor austerity had anything to do with it.
You managed to vote Tory in the same seat in 2010 and 2015 without any problem when Dave and George were the party leadership
I didn't live in Sheffield Hallam in 2010, so you're wrong again.
Allison Pearson @AllisonPearson · 21m I had a much-curtailed birthday party in the garden at the end of July 2020. Few friends. Everyone careful not to go in the house. Doing as we were told. As a journalist, I couldn’t risk doing anything else.
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.
Talking of controlling matters, have you seen the story in the Guardian about Dr Konstancja Duff. Another humdinger of an arrest and strip search at the notorious Stoke Newington nick, oh and the subsequent failed prosecution and civil action between the Professor and the Met.
Little sympathy on here I would wager. She looks a bit "Me too, woke".
Interesting story. As someone who was subjected to a vaguely similar ordeal by the police 20 years ago I've got a lot of sympathy for her and the fact that she fought this out for years and eventually won.
However, I can also see that it really isn't a good idea for members of the public to obstruct police actions. You can't ever know what you are getting in to.
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
You say that, but I bet there will be some faces sticking around if Boris goes, there have the be some place fillers. The Scottish and Welsh secretaries will probably be fine, continuity in the provinces as Truss might say.
Well MacArthur let Hirohito and others remain in office after the end of WWII, mostly as figureheads.
You don’t like Rishi or Liz or Sunak?
Rishi is Sunak !!!!!
There are two Rishi Sunaks.
One is chancellor of the exchequer and is raising NI and doing nothing about the energy crisis.
The other, who appears every so often, is a Thatcherite tax cutting uber mensch who has no idea why the tax burden is so high.
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.
Cheers. At the moment its just a mild flu, would normally have just tried to carry on as normal and take lemsip every few hours etc. But having had the positive test result and being forced to isolate in the living room, its all suddenly come in to focus.
Quite a moment when the second line came up on the LFT test after all this time.
Yeah. It's a bit of a stunner isn't it? Take care. And beware. For a while you'll think you're completely better. Then have a wobbly few hours where you need to kip. If you're owt like me that is. Take it easy for a bit.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 22m Former cabinet minister tells me majority of MPs want PM to get a grip, but it becoming harder as chaos consumes No 10 w no sign of stabilisation. But, PM helped by no obvious successor, which creates some inertia. That said, the attrition needs to stop. Move in 10 @SkyNews 2/
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Corroboration. It isn't required in English law outwith a limited set of circumstances. A jury can convict on the evidence of one adult saying "I saw x do y."
"A creature that gestates inside a human host - these are your words - and has concentrated acid for blood."
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.
Talking of controlling matters, have you seen the story in the Guardian about Dr Konstancja Duff. Another humdinger of an arrest and strip search at the notorious Stoke Newington nick, oh and the subsequent failed prosecution and civil action between the Professor and the Met.
Little sympathy on here I would wager. She looks a bit "Me too, woke".
Interesting story. As someone who was subjected to a vaguely similar ordeal by the police 20 years ago I've got a lot of sympathy for her and the fact that she fought this out for years and eventually won.
However, I can also see that it really isn't a good idea for members of the public to obstruct police actions. You can't ever know what you are getting in to.
Allison Pearson @AllisonPearson · 21m I had a much-curtailed birthday party in the garden at the end of July 2020. Few friends. Everyone careful not to go in the house. Doing as we were told. As a journalist, I couldn’t risk doing anything else.
Before I get the Third Degree. I have never voted Conservative at a General Election. I think I count as not a real Tory. Like every bugger else bar one apparently.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 22m Former cabinet minister tells me majority of MPs want PM to get a grip, but it becoming harder as chaos consumes No 10 w no sign of stabilisation. But, PM helped by no obvious successor, which creates some inertia. That said, the attrition needs to stop. Move in 10 @SkyNews 2/
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.
You’re probably the guy that said Blair had peaked in 1995.
Nope he peaked in 1997 but unlike him SKSWNBPM
You are weirdly obsessed with Sir Keir Starmer.
It really is very odd.
He is still angry that the old bloke who looked like a tramp and only scraped two Es at A level couldn't manage to beat a complete clown like Boris Johnson
It’s offtopic but it’s worth posting as usually it’s the country nearby that is more willing to reveal reality.
I get the logic of that, but is that really a thing? Irrespective of that example I doubt the reports of British papers on Ireland or France are generally considered more reliable than in the home countries.
And who knows what Russian papers say about the Ukraine?
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
I don't think that I will be voting Tory again, at least not in the foreseeable future, but those would be a step in the right direction.
As a matter of interest, when was the last time you voted Tory at a general election?
2010
I have voted in every GE since 1983, this was the only Conservative vote.
Likewise. I actually voted Tory from 1992 (my first GE) up to and including 2010. I don't see that happening again unless and until something dramatic happens.
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
I don't think that I will be voting Tory again, at least not in the foreseeable future, but those would be a step in the right direction.
As a matter of interest, when was the last time you voted Tory at a general election?
2010
I have voted in every GE since 1983, this was the only Conservative vote.
Well at least you have not never voted Tory, albeit you did not vote Tory in 2015 and 2019 when the Tories won majorities
I've never voted Tory. Does that mean I'm cancelled?
No, though I think the closest thing we have on PB to a swing voter is BigG. Voted Labour for Blair in 1997 and 2001 and has voted Tory since but not keen on Boris
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 22m Former cabinet minister tells me majority of MPs want PM to get a grip, but it becoming harder as chaos consumes No 10 w no sign of stabilisation. But, PM helped by no obvious successor, which creates some inertia. That said, the attrition needs to stop. Move in 10 @SkyNews 2/
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
You say that, but I bet there will be some faces sticking around if Boris goes, there have the be some place fillers. The Scottish and Welsh secretaries will probably be fine, continuity in the provinces as Truss might say.
Well MacArthur let Hirohito and others remain in office after the end of WWII, mostly as figureheads.
You don’t like Rishi or Liz or Sunak?
Rishi is Sunak !!!!!
There are two Rishi Sunaks.
One is chancellor of the exchequer and is raising NI and doing nothing about the energy crisis.
The other, who appears every so often, is a Thatcherite tax cutting uber mensch who has no idea why the tax burden is so high.
Rishi is letting it be known the NI increase was Boris and now the entire cabinet opposes it
I expect it will go, as a package of support to many for the energy crisis will come at the same time
The discussion on Boris having his decorator in for his birthday party in June got me thinking. I moved during Restrictions (when I was allowed to do so) into what was then a pretty scabby flat. Before lockdown we had booked new carpets to be fitted, which was obviously then delayed. Looking back, on the day BJ was celebrating his party, I was toiling away, ripping up carpets, for our appointment the following week, incidentally the first such appointment. So how was Boris's decorator allowed to be in number 10?
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
You say that, but I bet there will be some faces sticking around if Boris goes, there have the be some place fillers. The Scottish and Welsh secretaries will probably be fine, continuity in the provinces as Truss might say.
Well MacArthur let Hirohito and others remain in office after the end of WWII, mostly as figureheads.
You don’t like Rishi or Liz or Sunak?
Rishi is Sunak !!!!!
There are two Rishi Sunaks.
One is chancellor of the exchequer and is raising NI and doing nothing about the energy crisis.
The other, who appears every so often, is a Thatcherite tax cutting uber mensch who has no idea why the tax burden is so high.
Rishi is letting it be known the NI increase was Boris and now the entire cabinet opposes it
I expect it will go, as a package of support to many for the energy crisis will come at the same time
The sensible thing is to pause the NI rise, saying there is a crisis of living and then never ever mention it again.
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
You say that, but I bet there will be some faces sticking around if Boris goes, there have the be some place fillers. The Scottish and Welsh secretaries will probably be fine, continuity in the provinces as Truss might say.
Well MacArthur let Hirohito and others remain in office after the end of WWII, mostly as figureheads.
You don’t like Rishi or Liz or Sunak?
Rishi is Sunak !!!!!
There are two Rishi Sunaks.
One is chancellor of the exchequer and is raising NI and doing nothing about the energy crisis.
The other, who appears every so often, is a Thatcherite tax cutting uber mensch who has no idea why the tax burden is so high.
Rishi is letting it be known the NI increase was Boris and now the entire cabinet opposes it
I expect it will go, as a package of support to many for the energy crisis will come at the same time
The sensible thing is to pause the NI rise, saying there is a crisis of living and then never ever mention it again.
I expect that to happen but everything is paralysed waiting for Sue Gray
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25-iJKPA1CA
@Cyclefree
Talking of controlling matters, have you seen the story in the Guardian about Dr Konstancja Duff. Another humdinger of an arrest and strip search at the notorious Stoke Newington nick, oh and the subsequent failed prosecution and civil action between the Professor and the Met.
Little sympathy on here I would wager. She looks a bit "Me too, woke".
I'm a bad 'un and a bad 'un I shall stay!
You'll be seeing no transformation
But it's wrong to be a rogue in ev'ry way
Report conclusions
To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
Ghani privately confided in Javid shortly after alleged conversation with Chief Whip following Feb 2020 reshuffle, Telegraph has learned.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/24/sajid-javid-set-face-questions-nusrat-ghani-muslimness-sacking/
We shall see if her report stands scrutiny shortly enough, I suppose. Publishing a heavily redacted version will just be chucking fuel on the fire.
Lay Sunak!
1) Heavily redacted full report (junior staff personal details etc)
2) A detailed summary, with the full report kept confidential
I have a weird fascination with FOI responses and the inconsistent approach to this. Fun reading between the lines.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9738735/Fraud-blunders-Covid-support-schemes-cost-taxpayers-30bn-MPs-warn.html
The Treasury "appears to have no knowledge or little interest in the consequences of fraud to our economy or our society", said Lord Agnew, resigning today at dispatch box.
Think how much tax can be cut with that 🤑 though there is also option to use it on hospital, schools or defence.
This was always going to become a story at some point - awful time for Rishi if it becomes a story right now. It’s currently keeping Boris latest party revelation off the top of the Sky page headlines. 😕
And there’s more to come, as this has yet to grow into a big story too, though it’s day will come?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/22/fifth-of-uk-covid-contracts-raised-red-flags-for-possible-corruption
Will be interesting to observe if pro Boris media go after Sunak as a means of helping Boris position…
From a political betting point of view there is just too much going on at once!
Yes more should be being done about fraud but Lord Agnew seems to be complaining that someone didn’t do the work he seems to have been responsible for
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
You are beginning to sound like someone on a messianic mission Eagles 😦
Brexit nor austerity had anything to do with it.
@BethRigby
·
22m
Former cabinet minister tells me majority of MPs want PM to get a grip, but it becoming harder as chaos consumes No 10 w no sign of stabilisation. But, PM helped by no obvious successor, which creates some inertia. That said, the attrition needs to stop. Move in 10
@SkyNews
2/
https://twitter.com/BethRigby
It all comes down to Sue Gray and these latest allegations are known to her
The complicating factor for conservative mps is this Ukraine crisis and changing their leader just now
I expect Boris to squeak through but is far from safe and much will no doubt depend on May's locals
Quite a moment when the second line came up on the LFT test after all this time.
Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
3m
I: Johnson’s problems grow with birthday party leak #TomorrowsPapersToday
https://twitter.com/hendopolis
It really is very odd.
In short, the Tory Party shop stewards are also the assassins.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/24/1922-coup-members-tory-partys-influential-group-mobilising-against/
At least of all the cabinet who might be involved in war planning Wallace seems up to the job.
Allison Pearson
@AllisonPearson
·
21m
I had a much-curtailed birthday party in the garden at the end of July 2020. Few friends. Everyone careful not to go in the house.
Doing as we were told. As a journalist, I couldn’t risk doing anything else.
https://twitter.com/AllisonPearson/status/1485736275479044097
I have voted in every GE since 1983, this was the only Conservative vote.
However, I can also see that it really isn't a good idea for members of the public to obstruct police actions. You can't ever know what you are getting in to.
Brexit is going well and this is January when traffic is at its lowest
One is chancellor of the exchequer and is raising NI and doing nothing about the energy crisis.
The other, who appears every so often, is a Thatcherite tax cutting uber mensch who has no idea why the tax burden is so high.
Take care. And beware. For a while you'll think you're completely better. Then have a wobbly few hours where you need to kip.
If you're owt like me that is.
Take it easy for a bit.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/24/met-apologises-to-academic-for-sexist-derogatory-language
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10437119/Spotify-takes-Sussexes-podcasts-hands-Streaming-giant-hiring-producers-project.html
I remember this because my family came and visited us in our garden at the time
I have never voted Conservative at a General Election.
I think I count as not a real Tory. Like every bugger else bar one apparently.
I'd make them all have to spend the rest of their lives living on universal credit in a council house in the Red Wall.
Except for Jacob Rees-Mogg, I'd make him live in a particularly rough area of Glasgow or be the bitch of Douglas Ross for the rest of his life.
(Apologies if that last bit gives you nightmares.)
And who knows what Russian papers say about
theUkraine?I expect it will go, as a package of support to many for the energy crisis will come at the same time
I haven't always voted Labour either.
We need the report urgently