It's the specificness of the NZ 24 day isolation period. Not 20 days, not 21 days, not 25 days...24 days. I would love to know where that came from.
It certainly isn't following any science, especially with Omicron, where the vast bulk of people are through it in less than a week.
Even if you worked on the premise that it take a bit of time to pass from one member of a household to another, again with Omicron we know this will happen pretty swiftly.
I'm reminded of the point that here, before Christmas, people were more scared of catching the virus because of isolation, than because of the virus.
By setting the penalty of catching the virus high they would be hoping to encourage people to take more serious personal countermeasures to avoid catching it.
So it's trying to create a deterrent effect. Massive overreaction in the circumstances.
Following the Italian press, just smiling at the oddity that is an Italian presidential election. A reminder that the president assists in government formation, so similar to Germany and the UK, but a somewhat more fraught job! Berlusconi got a lot of attention for trying to throw his hat in the ring last month, but that seems very unlikely.
It's a papal conclave type system. Parliamentarians and regional leaders vote as many times as necessary, bargaining in between, until a quorum level (66% dropping to 50% later) is reached. The 1000 or so votes are spread around hundreds of candidates, some officially proposed, some not, hundreds of the voting slips remain blank waiting for consensus to emerge.
In the first vote, the lead candidate got 36 of the 1000 votes, if history is a guide, the eventually selected candidate may have only obtained 3 or 4 votes at this stage. After the third ballot, the retiring incumbent leads with 125 votes - I think they are hoping to drag him back, with over 400 blank papers - it may still be that the eventual winner is nowhere to be seen. It's a jolly old process.
In day to day life most peoples engagement with lawyers is bewildering. They seem to find endless problems. We bought our first flat a few years ago and the lawyer found so many problems with the lease etc that it sounded like we were heading towards catastrophe and financial ruin if we went ahead with the purchase. But it was a cheap flat and we needed somewhere to live and now it has doubled in value, along with rents in the area, which we would have needed to keep paying if we were cowed by her dire predictions, none of which were ever realised.
Professionally I have dealt with all parts of the legal profession from high street basement lawyers right up to leading QC's. Their main shortcoming is that they are not doers. But Starmer can't be criticised on this front, being DPP there were clearly a lot of difficult decision making involved. It is harder to think of a better background to prepare someone for the role of PM.
Some of his decisions at the DPP were not the best, though For instance, prosecutions of journalists under some very peculiar old statutes, all of which were thrown out by the courts and criticised in excoriating terms.
And he massively failed in the Jummy Saville situation.
It wasn't just Saville, there was some absolutely disastrous handling of cases by the CPS after all that blew up.
William Roche, how his case got to court, it was embarrassing for the prosecution as it was found the witness accounts just couldn't possibly be true e.g. he was on set when he was supposed to have committed offences, he never owned or had access to a car and property that were allegedly used. Also one witness account, it was their partner who basically answered all the questions during the police interviews, which soon got pulled apart by the defence. The CPS hadn't done even the most basic of checks around the facts.
And the other end, Rolf Harris. He nearly got away with it, because again the prosecution again had done such a shit job preparing the case. They hadn't found any proof he was at an event where it was claimed he abused a young girl. It was only a member of the public who sent in footage half way through the trial to ensured he got convicted. If the judge hadn't allowed that new evidence to be admitted, he more than likely would have been found innocent.
Isn’t there some question mark over Starmer’s reluctance to prosecute cases like Rotherham?
I recall some allegations to that effect. I should probably google to find out but I can’t be arsed as I am impatiently waiting for the first gin martini of the evening to arrive
That is more iffy ground......The likes of Nadine Dorries have tried that line of attack and it doesn't really stand up to examination.
My martini has arrived - with my only solid nutrition of the day, three pitted olives - so I am now happy to withdraw that allegation, if it is bollocks
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
New: Hearing the prime minister is telling MPs (who say they are getting more time with the PM than they ever imagined) that this is a media / Labour witch-hunt, that he’s been through worse before and that he’s bounced back before and will do so again
Witch hunt, eh? I wonder if there are any other high profile pols that have used that defence?
Also is getting more time with BJ necessarily going to make mps feel more warmly towards him, unless they're very shallow? Ah, ok, fair enough.
The 'Britain Trump' parallels are starting to really proliferate. The delight in lying, the laziness and high tolerance for chaos, the capricious abuse of power, a casual disregard for detail and for rules norms standards, a chauvinistic view of women, the brutish simpleton slogans, the crass 'humour' and spraying around of nicknames, the refusal to relinquish office regardless of events, the bullying and intimidation and general gangster vibe, and another that's just occurred to me - the humouring of young female close family members. Because the BJ/Carrie dynamic reminds me a little of the DT/Ivanka one. Johnson evacuates some dogs from a war zone because Carrie hears about their plight on the radio, Trump bombs Syria after Ivanka runs in sobbing about chemical weapons.
A notable difference is perhaps that Trump seems to be relatively proud and caring of his progeny (no doubt connected to his narcissm), while BJ moves on from one bowlful of the fruit of his loins to the next, even reluctant to acknowledge their existence in some cases.
Trump has a solid grass-roots base in his party, a huge mass of voters who are deeply devoted to him. As a result, something like this for him would be easily, easily brushed off. Johnson can't fall back on this level of support.
Apologies if I'm wrong but I think you're based in the US? There's an interesting series on BBC R4 (and World Service so I guess available in over there), The Coming Storm, about the rise of QAnon, the storming of the Capitol, Trump etc. What I find really fascinating is how willing many of the people involved are to talk, though in the latest episode Jack Posobiec, tho' initially interested, suddenly became very shy. Perhaps a polite English interviewer makes the difference in the other cases.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I'm sure there are things which are more futile than trying to ascribe personal political views to members of the Royal Family, but I can't immediately think of any.
If we ruled out futile political speculations on PB we’d have about 3 comments a day
My bet:
Queen: Leave The Late D of E: Leave Charles: Remain Andrew: Remoaner, wanted a 2nd vote Anne: Leave Edward: Remain Wills: Remain Kate: Leave Harry: Leave Megan: Not sure how Brexit benefits her, so probably Remain
Queen: definitely L D of E: probably L, but he'd want Greece and the UK tied together, so not a definite Charles: R Andrew: he'd want as much young 'totty' in the UK as possible, so R Anne: L Edward: genuinely no idea Wills: R Kate: R (because she knows that she has to support her husband, even when he's mistaken) Harry: Where's the party? Meghan: My friend Oprah said that Brexit was a terrible thing
Edward worked in the arts and media so I reckon Remain, almost certainly. All his friends in that circle will be Remain
Kate is the daughter of quite Leavey people, I suspect, and will also have been guided by the Q, I have her down as a secret Leaver, she probably fibbed to Wills
Harry surely Leave: back then he was a lairy lad in the army. They are all Leave
Piquantly he met Megan a month after the Brexit referendum, I imagine she converted him to Remain instantly, but too late
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I don't think "not being DPP at the time" and other "facts" are going to get in the way of these criticisms of Starmer.
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
And DPP's don't get to make political decisions. IANAL, but I presume he could only review his predecessor's decision under certain criteria. I suspect the problem was with the law rather than with Starmer's decision making.
"No, I think BJ stays and BJ goes are about the same from a Labour POV. Johnson is the Tory's best campaigner as you say and has a proven ability to reach parts of the electorate his rivals can't. But, he has been severely compromised by current events. By contrast, replacing him now with someone credible like Sunak would give the Tories a bounce now but their ability to recover further might be more limited. To put it another way, I think the distribution of outcomes for the Tories under Johnson has a lower mean but fatter tails. The probability of staying in office after the next election might be more or less similar, but the chances of a huge defeat under Johnson are bigger and the average outcome is worse."
++++
That's a fair analysis. But my point is less about logic than emotion. Labour, and the Remainery centre and left, have been brutally duffed up by Boris more than once. He is the man that won the Brexit referendum AND then won the Brexit election, forcing it through (it is remarkable to remember how close we came to the moral catastrophe of a 2nd vote)
Boris, therefore, is like the guy who beat you senseless, in a bewildering and extremely painful way, several times.
Now he lies sprawled in the dust, leaking blood. Your brain says: He's finished. But your muscle memory, your subconscious, says Go over there and stamp on his head. Then shoot him. Then dump him in a river. Like Rasputin. Make sure he's bloody dead this time
One hint of a twitch of Boris reviving, and all the jangling nerves return.....
Not sure how you can say that Boris is the best campaigner the Tories have. He might be, but we know nothing about nearly all of them, except May and I grant you he is better than her, but then so is everyone. How do you know how others will perform? It is not as if he didn't have the campaign set up for him on a plate namely 'Get Brexit Done' and against Corbyn for goodness sake.
Without Brexit and Corbyn I'm not sure he would get away with hiding in a fridge and refusing to be interviewed by Neil. There might be others much better than him at campaigning.
We know Boris is REALLY good because he won two London mayorals, against the grain, the Brexit referendum, against expectations, and then a large majority, against all the predictions
He is just very good at it. Now, the magic may have totally deserted him (or it may not), but that is an excellent track record. Better than anyone else in modern British politics with the possible exception of Blair, but he has basically left politics
Around Boris there is nullity, as you say. The bare and boundless sands.
If you were a havering Tory MP about to sack Boris, this CV of his would give you pause, especially when compared to his rivals, who are at best entirely unproven
Congrats on being one of his few (in the literal sense) apologists on this platform. It is normally the mad or the childish that point out that the Emperor has no clothes. Clearly not always true.
Surely Boris's limitation is that he's only a salesman. With Cummings or some other hard bastard in the back room pulling the le(a)vers which actually make things happen and steam-rollering obstacles, he's very happy to deliver a pool clip reassuring the nation that lying to the Queen (or whatever) is absolutely fine, and anyway.. look at me in my union jack pants.
But when the backroom intellect is delivered by Nadine Dorries wanting to cancel Match of the Day - or even at its best a Cummingsless Gove struggling to define levelling up - the sales pitch just looks vacuous.
As much as any wrongdoing, he's just run out of steam. The administration's like some insect in metamorphosis which expends all its energy on its raison d'etre (either Brexit or becoming a butterfly), then dies next day because it's knackered.
He managed to insult all lawyers and you just managed to insult all people in sales! So sorry to be a pedant, but professional sales people don't lie as they get found out and lose customers. He is not a sales man, he is a con man. Thinks he can blag it and enough people will fall for it. He believes as long as he can fool some of the people some of the time he can keep feeding his big fat ego.
OK.. "front man" then - or indeed "conman". My apology to sales professionals.
Essentially.. I meant he ain't the man who's sweated over the design of the product he's 'selling'. Which makes his pitch a hollow edifice.
However much (eg) Blair was focused on the selling and dependent on clever people around him, you detect he was invested in what he was trying to achieve. As "Two Articles" Johnson has demonstrated throughout, he really would stand up and shill for baby slaughter if he thought Herod was sneaking up in the polls.
When Starmer was DPP, my mate had a shovel stolen from his garden shed. We knew who did it, but he wasn't prosecuted. The police just couldn't be arsed to investigate. So, that proves that Starmer was a rubbish DPP.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
He probably just viewed the 2nd referendum as part of the appeal process.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I don't think "not being DPP at the time" and other "facts" are going to get in the way of these criticisms of Starmer.
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
Does that make him bad? There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the law here. If there is insufficient evidence to prosecute DPPs generally don't decide to make some up.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I don't think "not being DPP at the time" and other "facts" are going to get in the way of these criticisms of Starmer.
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
And DPP's don't get to make political decisions. IANAL, but I presume he could only review his predecessor's decision under certain criteria. I suspect the problem was with the law rather than with Starmer's decision making.
My only point was he made a decision (which TSE contested and was incorrect).
It looks to me like the decision of an establishment stooge.
I'm sure there are things which are more futile than trying to ascribe personal political views to members of the Royal Family, but I can't immediately think of any.
If we ruled out futile political speculations on PB we’d have about 3 comments a day
My bet:
Queen: Leave The Late D of E: Leave Charles: Remain Andrew: Remoaner, wanted a 2nd vote Anne: Leave Edward: Remain Wills: Remain Kate: Leave Harry: Leave Megan: Not sure how Brexit benefits her, so probably Remain
Queen: definitely L D of E: probably L, but he'd want Greece and the UK tied together, so not a definite Charles: R Andrew: he'd want as much young 'totty' in the UK as possible, so R Anne: L Edward: genuinely no idea Wills: R Kate: R (because she knows that she has to support her husband, even when he's mistaken) Harry: Where's the party? Meghan: My friend Oprah said that Brexit was a terrible thing
Edward worked in the arts and media so I reckon Remain, almost certainly. All his friends in that circle will be Remain
Kate is the daughter of quite Leavey people, I suspect, and will also have been guided by the Q, I have her down as a secret Leaver, she probably fibbed to Wills
Harry surely Leave: back then he was a lairy lad in the army. They are all Leave
Piquantly he met Megan a month after the Brexit referendum, I imagine she converted him to Remain instantly, but too late
So, Harry is the anti-William Glenn then?
Lol. The man that I suggested changed his moniker to Volte Face
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I don't think "not being DPP at the time" and other "facts" are going to get in the way of these criticisms of Starmer.
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
In light of an Open verdict by a Coroner. Given that verdict the likely decision was even more likely to be no prosecution than the original decision.
One thing I've noticed about all these attacks on SKS is that they seem to pick the popular but easily explained ones never an obscure one where the decision could have gone either way.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Whilst your general point is true that there are a lot of people in politics with “average” careers I would suggest from my own experience in finance that the guys running the regulators (and often management) are generally (if not totally) those who didn’t have startling careers or ability in their roles in their area of finance.
The absolute best stockbroker I knew, an absolute legend in ability and the size and quality of clients could have been CEO of the business worldwide, brilliantly clever and able (and a qualified lawyer, natch) but he had no desire to get involved of the management and control because he loved what he did and did it brilliantly and made a very healthy fortune.
So to suggest that say Starmer has more ability and a better career than say Cox is pushing it - the heads of the CPS, banks etc aren’t always the best lawyers or bankers but people who find their place in the management or regulatory side.
I would imagine that Cox isn’t paid the sort of money he is because he’s just ok and I doubt Starmer (although I could be wrong obviously) was the sort of barrister who would have been first on the list for many big clients.
I doubt General Sir Nick Carter was the “best soldier” but he followed the staff route which inevitably puts you into a position where you are going to be “head” of something.
And I also think that from personal experience and anecdotes re the CPS, being head of it isn’t that great a deal - a giant amongst pygmies maybe.
If I’m wrong then I withdraw about Starmer’s genius but I wouldn’t go as far as a hagiography as you wrote.
There may be some truth in this. But in Starmers case he made it to QC, was joint head of chambers - he had a good record, so he was at the top of his game and could surely have done anything he wanted with his career. DPP is not a piddly administrative regulatory role, it is making difficult decisions all day long.
Here's a list of people I like who I think would have voted the same way as me because how could they not? They're nice and I'm nice and I'm right so they must be right too. [super_good_guys.txt]
And here's a list of paedophiles and genocidal psychos who I'm pretty sure would have voted the opposite way to me. Because boooo, paedophiles and genocide, boooo. [good_for_nothings.txt]
I know. He said the Devil is a Remainer. That's essentially saying Remainers ARE the Devil. Really silly.
Having decided how the current royal family would have voted in the Brexit referendum, let's do the same with historic monarchs:
Edward VIII: would have found the EU insufficiently fascistic, and would have abstained Victoria: preferred Empire over European entanglements, Leave George IV: definitely a Remainer George III: Leaver George I: barely spoke English, Remain William & Mary: Remain Cromwell: Definitely Leave Elizabeth: Leave (bloody Spaniards) Henry VIII: Leave Henry V: Kept trying to join France - Remain
New: Hearing the prime minister is telling MPs (who say they are getting more time with the PM than they ever imagined) that this is a media / Labour witch-hunt, that he’s been through worse before and that he’s bounced back before and will do so again
Witch hunt, eh? I wonder if there are any other high profile pols that have used that defence?
Also is getting more time with BJ necessarily going to make mps feel more warmly towards him, unless they're very shallow? Ah, ok, fair enough.
The 'Britain Trump' parallels are starting to really proliferate. The delight in lying, the laziness and high tolerance for chaos, the capricious abuse of power, a casual disregard for detail and for rules norms standards, a chauvinistic view of women, the brutish simpleton slogans, the crass 'humour' and spraying around of nicknames, the refusal to relinquish office regardless of events, the bullying and intimidation and general gangster vibe, and another that's just occurred to me - the humouring of young female close family members. Because the BJ/Carrie dynamic reminds me a little of the DT/Ivanka one. Johnson evacuates some dogs from a war zone because Carrie hears about their plight on the radio, Trump bombs Syria after Ivanka runs in sobbing about chemical weapons.
A notable difference is perhaps that Trump seems to be relatively proud and caring of his progeny (no doubt connected to his narcissm), while BJ moves on from one bowlful of the fruit of his loins to the next, even reluctant to acknowledge their existence in some cases.
Trump has a solid grass-roots base in his party, a huge mass of voters who are deeply devoted to him. As a result, something like this for him would be easily, easily brushed off. Johnson can't fall back on this level of support.
Apologies if I'm wrong but I think you're based in the US? There's an interesting series on BBC R4 (and World Service so I guess available in over there), The Coming Storm, about the rise of QAnon, the storming of the Capitol, Trump etc. What I find really fascinating is how willing many of the people involved are to talk, though in the latest episode Jack Posobiec, tho' initially interested, suddenly became very shy. Perhaps a polite English interviewer makes the difference in the other cases.
American but living over here for a long time. What you mentioned is another big difference. Can you imagine anyone around Boris suggesting that Keir Starmer secretly owns an Aberdeen Steak House in central London? And that its basement was used as a clearing house for internal organs stolen from Eastern European immigrants (all funded by Jeffrey Epstein, of course.)
With adjournment debate about to start, senior Cabinet minister tells me: “I think you can safely have an early night tonight.” Some backbenchers now predicting no PM statement on Gray report until Monday.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I don't think "not being DPP at the time" and other "facts" are going to get in the way of these criticisms of Starmer.
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
In light of an Open verdict by a Coroner. Given that verdict the likely decision was even more likely to be no prosecution than the original decision.
One thing I've noticed about all these attacks on SKS is that they seem to pick the popular but easily explained ones never an obscure one where the decision could have gone either way.
Being DPP, you will get some decisions wrong.
SKS got some decisions wrong. Some big ones wrong.
With adjournment debate about to start, senior Cabinet minister tells me: “I think you can safely have an early night tonight.” Some backbenchers now predicting no PM statement on Gray report until Monday.
I'm sure there are things which are more futile than trying to ascribe personal political views to members of the Royal Family, but I can't immediately think of any.
If we ruled out futile political speculations on PB we’d have about 3 comments a day
My bet:
Queen: Leave The Late D of E: Leave Charles: Remain Andrew: Remoaner, wanted a 2nd vote Anne: Leave Edward: Remain Wills: Remain Kate: Leave Harry: Leave Megan: Not sure how Brexit benefits her, so probably Remain
Queen: definitely L D of E: probably L, but he'd want Greece and the UK tied together, so not a definite Charles: R Andrew: he'd want as much young 'totty' in the UK as possible, so R Anne: L Edward: genuinely no idea Wills: R Kate: R (because she knows that she has to support her husband, even when he's mistaken) Harry: Where's the party? Meghan: My friend Oprah said that Brexit was a terrible thing
Harry surely Leave: back then he was a lairy lad in the army. They are all Leave
Er, apart from 100% of the sample ex-HMF on PB that is (me, Dura and Carnyx IIRC - any more for any more?)
And HCav in particular generally are 50:50 Remain:Leave as of the sample I come into contact with. Much like the rest of the population.
But, with all due respect, you are all old (like me)
Younger military types are much Leavier. Especially the boozy laddish types like Harry (as was, RIP)
"No, I think BJ stays and BJ goes are about the same from a Labour POV. Johnson is the Tory's best campaigner as you say and has a proven ability to reach parts of the electorate his rivals can't. But, he has been severely compromised by current events. By contrast, replacing him now with someone credible like Sunak would give the Tories a bounce now but their ability to recover further might be more limited. To put it another way, I think the distribution of outcomes for the Tories under Johnson has a lower mean but fatter tails. The probability of staying in office after the next election might be more or less similar, but the chances of a huge defeat under Johnson are bigger and the average outcome is worse."
++++
That's a fair analysis. But my point is less about logic than emotion. Labour, and the Remainery centre and left, have been brutally duffed up by Boris more than once. He is the man that won the Brexit referendum AND then won the Brexit election, forcing it through (it is remarkable to remember how close we came to the moral catastrophe of a 2nd vote)
Boris, therefore, is like the guy who beat you senseless, in a bewildering and extremely painful way, several times.
Now he lies sprawled in the dust, leaking blood. Your brain says: He's finished. But your muscle memory, your subconscious, says Go over there and stamp on his head. Then shoot him. Then dump him in a river. Like Rasputin. Make sure he's bloody dead this time
One hint of a twitch of Boris reviving, and all the jangling nerves return.....
Not sure how you can say that Boris is the best campaigner the Tories have. He might be, but we know nothing about nearly all of them, except May and I grant you he is better than her, but then so is everyone. How do you know how others will perform? It is not as if he didn't have the campaign set up for him on a plate namely 'Get Brexit Done' and against Corbyn for goodness sake.
Without Brexit and Corbyn I'm not sure he would get away with hiding in a fridge and refusing to be interviewed by Neil. There might be others much better than him at campaigning.
We know Boris is REALLY good because he won two London mayorals, against the grain, the Brexit referendum, against expectations, and then a large majority, against all the predictions
He is just very good at it. Now, the magic may have totally deserted him (or it may not), but that is an excellent track record. Better than anyone else in modern British politics with the possible exception of Blair, but he has basically left politics
Around Boris there is nullity, as you say. The bare and boundless sands.
If you were a havering Tory MP about to sack Boris, this CV of his would give you pause, especially when compared to his rivals, who are at best entirely unproven
Congrats on being one of his few (in the literal sense) apologists on this platform. It is normally the mad or the childish that point out that the Emperor has no clothes. Clearly not always true.
Surely Boris's limitation is that he's only a salesman. With Cummings or some other hard bastard in the back room pulling the le(a)vers which actually make things happen and steam-rollering obstacles, he's very happy to deliver a pool clip reassuring the nation that lying to the Queen (or whatever) is absolutely fine, and anyway.. look at me in my union jack pants.
But when the backroom intellect is delivered by Nadine Dorries wanting to cancel Match of the Day - or even at its best a Cummingsless Gove struggling to define levelling up - the sales pitch just looks vacuous.
As much as any wrongdoing, he's just run out of steam. The administration's like some insect in metamorphosis which expends all its energy on its raison d'etre (either Brexit or becoming a butterfly), then dies next day because it's knackered.
Even if Boris survives, what is he FOR? What will he do with his miraculous 2nd (3rd, 8th) life?
There is no obvious answer. If he does survive he needs to get on to this, sharply
And if he doesn't, this is why JRM's noise about the necessity for an election is errant nonsense. The Tories under a new leader would need to use the next two years to design a platform which gets their 80-seat majority enthused to deliver, then show progress in enacting it and tangible results for 40pc of likely voters. "More of the same with less law-breaking" is not a winning campaign slogan for GE 2021
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I don't think "not being DPP at the time" and other "facts" are going to get in the way of these criticisms of Starmer.
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
In light of an Open verdict by a Coroner. Given that verdict the likely decision was even more likely to be no prosecution than the original decision.
One thing I've noticed about all these attacks on SKS is that they seem to pick the popular but easily explained ones never an obscure one where the decision could have gone either way.
Having decided how the current royal family would have voted in the Brexit referendum, let's do the same with historic monarchs:
Edward VIII: would have found the EU insufficiently fascistic, and would have abstained Victoria: preferred Empire over European entanglements, Leave George IV: definitely a Remainer George III: Leaver George I: barely spoke English, Remain William & Mary: Remain Cromwell: Definitely Leave Elizabeth: Leave (bloody Spaniards) Henry VIII: Leave Henry V: Kept trying to join France - Remain
Given how often people have earnestly recommended we "control our boarders", I'd say not speaking English is also compatible with Leave.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
The unending supply of cnuts you've never heard of that the Tory party has in parliament never ceases to amaze me. At least in this time of crises he's concerning himself with the big issues.
Here's a list of people I like who I think would have voted the same way as me because how could they not? They're nice and I'm nice and I'm right so they must be right too. [super_good_guys.txt]
And here's a list of paedophiles and genocidal psychos who I'm pretty sure would have voted the opposite way to me. Because boooo, paedophiles and genocide, boooo. [good_for_nothings.txt]
I know. He said the Devil is a Remainer. That's essentially saying Remainers ARE the Devil. Really silly.
I think it was a little more tongue in cheek than that.
With adjournment debate about to start, senior Cabinet minister tells me: “I think you can safely have an early night tonight.” Some backbenchers now predicting no PM statement on Gray report until Monday.
I wonder what Sue Gray will think about that, given that her apparently public call to publish 'within hours' has apparently been completely ignored. No doubt Johnson wants to calm down the momentum, and go through with individual MP's what's in the report first.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I don't think "not being DPP at the time" and other "facts" are going to get in the way of these criticisms of Starmer.
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
In light of an Open verdict by a Coroner. Given that verdict the likely decision was even more likely to be no prosecution than the original decision.
One thing I've noticed about all these attacks on SKS is that they seem to pick the popular but easily explained ones never an obscure one where the decision could have gone either way.
Jimmy Saville?
Please share with us your expert legal opinion on what else he should have done?
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
This is quite shocking polling. Fair comment on journalists, but have the British people never met any lawyers??!!
They’ve probably met those who help get compensation for all sorts of stuff, from missold PPI to bad dentistry to medical conditions arising from road accidents, and the rest?
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I don't think "not being DPP at the time" and other "facts" are going to get in the way of these criticisms of Starmer.
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
In light of an Open verdict by a Coroner. Given that verdict the likely decision was even more likely to be no prosecution than the original decision.
One thing I've noticed about all these attacks on SKS is that they seem to pick the popular but easily explained ones never an obscure one where the decision could have gone either way.
Hard to prosecute a he said / she said case when none of the victims are willing to stand up in court to give evidence.
I can see why the decision was made not to prosecute - but the police should have done way more to change the victims minds - letting them know they weren't going to be the only witness would have helped a lot I suspect.
New: Hearing the prime minister is telling MPs (who say they are getting more time with the PM than they ever imagined) that this is a media / Labour witch-hunt, that he’s been through worse before and that he’s bounced back before and will do so again
Witch hunt, eh? I wonder if there are any other high profile pols that have used that defence?
Also is getting more time with BJ necessarily going to make mps feel more warmly towards him, unless they're very shallow? Ah, ok, fair enough.
The 'Britain Trump' parallels are starting to really proliferate. The delight in lying, the laziness and high tolerance for chaos, the capricious abuse of power, a casual disregard for detail and for rules norms standards, a chauvinistic view of women, the brutish simpleton slogans, the crass 'humour' and spraying around of nicknames, the refusal to relinquish office regardless of events, the bullying and intimidation and general gangster vibe, and another that's just occurred to me - the humouring of young female close family members. Because the BJ/Carrie dynamic reminds me a little of the DT/Ivanka one. Johnson evacuates some dogs from a war zone because Carrie hears about their plight on the radio, Trump bombs Syria after Ivanka runs in sobbing about chemical weapons.
A notable difference is perhaps that Trump seems to be relatively proud and caring of his progeny (no doubt connected to his narcissm), while BJ moves on from one bowlful of the fruit of his loins to the next, even reluctant to acknowledge their existence in some cases.
Trump has a solid grass-roots base in his party, a huge mass of voters who are deeply devoted to him. As a result, something like this for him would be easily, easily brushed off. Johnson can't fall back on this level of support.
Apologies if I'm wrong but I think you're based in the US? There's an interesting series on BBC R4 (and World Service so I guess available in over there), The Coming Storm, about the rise of QAnon, the storming of the Capitol, Trump etc. What I find really fascinating is how willing many of the people involved are to talk, though in the latest episode Jack Posobiec, tho' initially interested, suddenly became very shy. Perhaps a polite English interviewer makes the difference in the other cases.
American but living over here for a long time. What you mentioned is another big difference. Can you imagine anyone around Boris suggesting that Keir Starmer secretly owns an Aberdeen Steak House in central London? And that its basement was used as a clearing house for internal organs stolen from Eastern European immigrants (all funded by Jeffrey Epstein, of course.)
Here's a list of people I like who I think would have voted the same way as me because how could they not? They're nice and I'm nice and I'm right so they must be right too. [super_good_guys.txt]
And here's a list of paedophiles and genocidal psychos who I'm pretty sure would have voted the opposite way to me. Because boooo, paedophiles and genocide, boooo. [good_for_nothings.txt]
I know. He said the Devil is a Remainer. That's essentially saying Remainers ARE the Devil. Really silly.
I think it was a little more tongue in cheek than that.
You know how Leon is. He's joking, but he's not joking. The forum Boris. He'll take that as a compliment.
Having decided how the current royal family would have voted in the Brexit referendum, let's do the same with historic monarchs:
Edward VIII: would have found the EU insufficiently fascistic, and would have abstained Victoria: preferred Empire over European entanglements, Leave George IV: definitely a Remainer George III: Leaver George I: barely spoke English, Remain William & Mary: Remain Cromwell: Definitely Leave Elizabeth: Leave (bloody Spaniards) Henry VIII: Leave Henry V: Kept trying to join France - Remain
Given how often people have earnestly recommended we "control our boarders", I'd say not speaking English is also compatible with Leave.
Lest we forget the misuse of apostrophes by Brexiteers.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I don't think "not being DPP at the time" and other "facts" are going to get in the way of these criticisms of Starmer.
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
And DPP's don't get to make political decisions. IANAL, but I presume he could only review his predecessor's decision under certain criteria. I suspect the problem was with the law rather than with Starmer's decision making.
My only point was he made a decision (which TSE contested and was incorrect).
It looks to me like the decision of an establishment stooge.
Wikipedia has this: On 14 December 2006, Lord Justice Richards (Richards LJ) of the High Court, sitting with Mr Justice Forbes (Forbes J) and Mr Justice Mackay (Mackay J), unanimously rejected an application for a judicial review into the decision of the office of the DPP on behalf of the CPS to rule out criminal prosecutions of the individual police officers who shot dead Jean Charles de Menezes, ruling that "[I]t was a reasonable decision ... on the basis that they were likely to fail"
I don't quite see that makes him an establishment stooge if he subsequently decided a further review was therefore not warranted.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I don't think "not being DPP at the time" and other "facts" are going to get in the way of these criticisms of Starmer.
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
In light of an Open verdict by a Coroner. Given that verdict the likely decision was even more likely to be no prosecution than the original decision.
One thing I've noticed about all these attacks on SKS is that they seem to pick the popular but easily explained ones never an obscure one where the decision could have gone either way.
Jimmy Saville?
Please share with us your expert legal opinion on what else he should have done?
Short of digging Mr Savile up? I'd be interested to know.
Having decided how the current royal family would have voted in the Brexit referendum, let's do the same with historic monarchs:
Edward VIII: would have found the EU insufficiently fascistic, and would have abstained Victoria: preferred Empire over European entanglements, Leave George IV: definitely a Remainer George III: Leaver George I: barely spoke English, Remain William & Mary: Remain Cromwell: Definitely Leave Elizabeth: Leave (bloody Spaniards) Henry VIII: Leave Henry V: Kept trying to join France - Remain
Given how often people have earnestly recommended we "control our boarders", I'd say not speaking English is also compatible with Leave.
Lest we forget the misuse of apostrophes by Brexiteers.
They're right though. The average Brexit is, in fact, Brexit.
With adjournment debate about to start, senior Cabinet minister tells me: “I think you can safely have an early night tonight.” Some backbenchers now predicting no PM statement on Gray report until Monday.
I wonder what Sue Gray will think about that, given that her apparently public call to publish 'within hours' has apparently been completely ignored. No doubt Johnson wants to calm down the momentum, and go through with individual MP's what's in the report first.
It is reported that the hold up is between Sue Gray and the Met on deciding on what can be released in view of the criminal investigation
I'm sure there are things which are more futile than trying to ascribe personal political views to members of the Royal Family, but I can't immediately think of any.
If we ruled out futile political speculations on PB we’d have about 3 comments a day
My bet:
Queen: Leave The Late D of E: Leave Charles: Remain Andrew: Remoaner, wanted a 2nd vote Anne: Leave Edward: Remain Wills: Remain Kate: Leave Harry: Leave Megan: Not sure how Brexit benefits her, so probably Remain
Queen: definitely L D of E: probably L, but he'd want Greece and the UK tied together, so not a definite Charles: R Andrew: he'd want as much young 'totty' in the UK as possible, so R Anne: L Edward: genuinely no idea Wills: R Kate: R (because she knows that she has to support her husband, even when he's mistaken) Harry: Where's the party? Meghan: My friend Oprah said that Brexit was a terrible thing
Harry surely Leave: back then he was a lairy lad in the army. They are all Leave
Er, apart from 100% of the sample ex-HMF on PB that is (me, Dura and Carnyx IIRC - any more for any more?)
And HCav in particular generally are 50:50 Remain:Leave as of the sample I come into contact with. Much like the rest of the population.
But, with all due respect, you are all old (like me)
Younger military types are much Leavier. Especially the boozy laddish types like Harry (as was, RIP)
Harry is a boozy laddish HCav officer.
All the ex-servicemen I know (including a few under 30) were remainers. Sorry Leon, being a useful idiot for Putin doesn't exactly make you a patriot.
With adjournment debate about to start, senior Cabinet minister tells me: “I think you can safely have an early night tonight.” Some backbenchers now predicting no PM statement on Gray report until Monday.
I wonder what Sue Gray will think about that, given that her apparently public call to publish 'within hours' has apparently been completely ignored. No doubt Johnson wants to calm down the momentum, and go through with individual MP's what's in the report first.
It is reported that the hold up is between Sue Gray and the Met on deciding on what can be released in view of the criminal investigation
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
"In the interests of transparency and accountability, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, has decided that this detailed explanation of the circumstances surrounding Mr Tomlinson's death and the reasons for the decision not to bring a prosecution should be published."
Having decided how the current royal family would have voted in the Brexit referendum, let's do the same with historic monarchs:
Edward VIII: would have found the EU insufficiently fascistic, and would have abstained Victoria: preferred Empire over European entanglements, Leave George IV: definitely a Remainer George III: Leaver George I: barely spoke English, Remain William & Mary: Remain Cromwell: Definitely Leave Elizabeth: Leave (bloody Spaniards) Henry VIII: Leave Henry V: Kept trying to join France - Remain
Given how often people have earnestly recommended we "control our boarders", I'd say not speaking English is also compatible with Leave.
The boarders were the ones crossing the border...so not entirely wrong
I'm sure there are things which are more futile than trying to ascribe personal political views to members of the Royal Family, but I can't immediately think of any.
If we ruled out futile political speculations on PB we’d have about 3 comments a day
My bet:
Queen: Leave The Late D of E: Leave Charles: Remain Andrew: Remoaner, wanted a 2nd vote Anne: Leave Edward: Remain Wills: Remain Kate: Leave Harry: Leave Megan: Not sure how Brexit benefits her, so probably Remain
Queen: definitely L D of E: probably L, but he'd want Greece and the UK tied together, so not a definite Charles: R Andrew: he'd want as much young 'totty' in the UK as possible, so R Anne: L Edward: genuinely no idea Wills: R Kate: R (because she knows that she has to support her husband, even when he's mistaken) Harry: Where's the party? Meghan: My friend Oprah said that Brexit was a terrible thing
Harry surely Leave: back then he was a lairy lad in the army. They are all Leave
Er, apart from 100% of the sample ex-HMF on PB that is (me, Dura and Carnyx IIRC - any more for any more?)
And HCav in particular generally are 50:50 Remain:Leave as of the sample I come into contact with. Much like the rest of the population.
But, with all due respect, you are all old (like me)
Younger military types are much Leavier. Especially the boozy laddish types like Harry (as was, RIP)
Harry is a boozy laddish HCav officer.
All the ex-servicemen I know (including a few under 30) were remainers. Sorry Leon, being a useful idiot for Putin doesn't exactly make you a patriot.
Nah, Harry is a Brexit backing traditionalist.
He did what his ancestors did, foreign princes going to Muslim lands and killing Muslims.
So many Brexiteers thought that St George was a Brexiteer, being a patriotic Englishman after all.
With adjournment debate about to start, senior Cabinet minister tells me: “I think you can safely have an early night tonight.” Some backbenchers now predicting no PM statement on Gray report until Monday.
I wonder what Sue Gray will think about that, given that her apparently public call to publish 'within hours' has apparently been completely ignored. No doubt Johnson wants to calm down the momentum, and go through with individual MP's what's in the report first.
It is reported that the hold up is between Sue Gray and the Met on deciding on what can be released in view of the criminal investigation
A source for this, please ? There was certain amount of scepticism on the security aspect earlier, that I saw from various talking heads.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I don't think "not being DPP at the time" and other "facts" are going to get in the way of these criticisms of Starmer.
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
In light of an Open verdict by a Coroner. Given that verdict the likely decision was even more likely to be no prosecution than the original decision.
One thing I've noticed about all these attacks on SKS is that they seem to pick the popular but easily explained ones never an obscure one where the decision could have gone either way.
Jimmy Saville?
Please share with us your expert legal opinion on what else he should have done?
Well as Saville abused 500+ victims over a four decade period the decision of the CPS to not prosecute due to insufficient evidence was rather odd.
With adjournment debate about to start, senior Cabinet minister tells me: “I think you can safely have an early night tonight.” Some backbenchers now predicting no PM statement on Gray report until Monday.
I wonder what Sue Gray will think about that, given that her apparently public call to publish 'within hours' has apparently been completely ignored. No doubt Johnson wants to calm down the momentum, and go through with individual MP's what's in the report first.
It is reported that the hold up is between Sue Gray and the Met on deciding on what can be released in view of the criminal investigation
A source for this, please ? There was certain amount of scepticism on the security aspect earlier, that I saw from various talking heads.
Having decided how the current royal family would have voted in the Brexit referendum, let's do the same with historic monarchs:
Edward VIII: would have found the EU insufficiently fascistic, and would have abstained Victoria: preferred Empire over European entanglements, Leave George IV: definitely a Remainer George III: Leaver George I: barely spoke English, Remain William & Mary: Remain Cromwell: Definitely Leave Elizabeth: Leave (bloody Spaniards) Henry VIII: Leave Henry V: Kept trying to join France - Remain
Given how often people have earnestly recommended we "control our boarders", I'd say not speaking English is also compatible with Leave.
Lest we forget the misuse of apostrophes by Brexiteers.
They're right though. The average Brexit is, in fact, Brexit.
I know I'm not impartial but I'm getting the distinct feeling that we're enjoying a below average Brexit.
The unending supply of cnuts you've never heard of that the Tory party has in parliament never ceases to amaze me. At least in this time of crises he's concerning himself with the big issues.
Its more a problem with MP's not being very good at social media. I did listen to what he had to say, and didn't find it that badly judged.
'received a complaint from a left wing whingebag, groaner, moaner, whatever it may be'
'I think it's quite tragic really that this Labour supporter, Labour member, maybe even a Labour councillor, y'know, who knows..'
It might even have been SKS!
Amazing how the Tory mindset has changed in recent times: adherence to the law is now what only finicky, humourless, vindictive and curmudgeonly Lefties get bothered with. It can only be the rise of Trump/Boris that brought this about. I can't imagine it was a thing when even Theresa, May or IDS were around.
With adjournment debate about to start, senior Cabinet minister tells me: “I think you can safely have an early night tonight.” Some backbenchers now predicting no PM statement on Gray report until Monday.
I wonder what Sue Gray will think about that, given that her apparently public call to publish 'within hours' has apparently been completely ignored. No doubt Johnson wants to calm down the momentum, and go through with individual MP's what's in the report first.
Regardless what she thinks, she will say “okay boss. Do what you like to my independent report” She will then order a pizza. Next stop after her house he delivers to the guardian. But video footage will show she was naked when she opened the door to him, so it wasn’t a report she gave him.
Having decided how the current royal family would have voted in the Brexit referendum, let's do the same with historic monarchs:
Edward VIII: would have found the EU insufficiently fascistic, and would have abstained Victoria: preferred Empire over European entanglements, Leave George IV: definitely a Remainer George III: Leaver George I: barely spoke English, Remain William & Mary: Remain Cromwell: Definitely Leave Elizabeth: Leave (bloody Spaniards) Henry VIII: Leave Henry V: Kept trying to join France - Remain
Given how often people have earnestly recommended we "control our boarders", I'd say not speaking English is also compatible with Leave.
The boarders were the ones crossing the border...so not entirely wrong
Yes, the MSM tried to bury the fact that there were hoards.
With adjournment debate about to start, senior Cabinet minister tells me: “I think you can safely have an early night tonight.” Some backbenchers now predicting no PM statement on Gray report until Monday.
I wonder what Sue Gray will think about that, given that her apparently public call to publish 'within hours' has apparently been completely ignored. No doubt Johnson wants to calm down the momentum, and go through with individual MP's what's in the report first.
It is reported that the hold up is between Sue Gray and the Met on deciding on what can be released in view of the criminal investigation
A source for this, please ? There was certain amount of scepticism on the security aspect earlier, that I saw from various talking heads.
Sky news
Hmm. That may be what is going on, but it also seems prudent to reserve judgement about that, after what happened yesterday, and the official claims on delay that were later debunked.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I don't think "not being DPP at the time" and other "facts" are going to get in the way of these criticisms of Starmer.
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
In light of an Open verdict by a Coroner. Given that verdict the likely decision was even more likely to be no prosecution than the original decision.
One thing I've noticed about all these attacks on SKS is that they seem to pick the popular but easily explained ones never an obscure one where the decision could have gone either way.
Jimmy Saville?
Please share with us your expert legal opinion on what else he should have done?
Well as Saville abused 500+ victims over a four decade period the decision of the CPS to not prosecute due to insufficient evidence was rather odd.
Read the 2 links that have been posted below.
None of those 500+ victims either went to the police or agreed to go to court were Saville prosecuted - so he wasn't because there wasn't any chance of conviction.
Having decided how the current royal family would have voted in the Brexit referendum, let's do the same with historic monarchs:
Edward VIII: would have found the EU insufficiently fascistic, and would have abstained Victoria: preferred Empire over European entanglements, Leave George IV: definitely a Remainer George III: Leaver George I: barely spoke English, Remain William & Mary: Remain Cromwell: Definitely Leave Elizabeth: Leave (bloody Spaniards) Henry VIII: Leave Henry V: Kept trying to join France - Remain
Why miss out George II? Actually led British troops against European armies, I think. Leave.
Having decided how the current royal family would have voted in the Brexit referendum, let's do the same with historic monarchs:
Edward VIII: would have found the EU insufficiently fascistic, and would have abstained Victoria: preferred Empire over European entanglements, Leave George IV: definitely a Remainer George III: Leaver George I: barely spoke English, Remain William & Mary: Remain Cromwell: Definitely Leave Elizabeth: Leave (bloody Spaniards) Henry VIII: Leave Henry V: Kept trying to join France - Remain
Given how often people have earnestly recommended we "control our boarders", I'd say not speaking English is also compatible with Leave.
Lest we forget the misuse of apostrophes by Brexiteers.
They're right though. The average Brexit is, in fact, Brexit.
I know I'm not impartial but I'm getting the distinct feeling that we're enjoying a below average Brexit.
Your bias is showing. This is the best Brexit there has ever been.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
"In the interests of transparency and accountability, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, has decided that this detailed explanation of the circumstances surrounding Mr Tomlinson's death and the reasons for the decision not to bring a prosecution should be published."
The Guardian peddles fake news as well?
More events came to light, so your original comment was wrong.
Starmer did eventually prosecute someone over Ian Tomlinson.
I'm sure there are things which are more futile than trying to ascribe personal political views to members of the Royal Family, but I can't immediately think of any.
If we ruled out futile political speculations on PB we’d have about 3 comments a day
My bet:
Queen: Leave The Late D of E: Leave Charles: Remain Andrew: Remoaner, wanted a 2nd vote Anne: Leave Edward: Remain Wills: Remain Kate: Leave Harry: Leave Megan: Not sure how Brexit benefits her, so probably Remain
Queen: definitely L D of E: probably L, but he'd want Greece and the UK tied together, so not a definite Charles: R Andrew: he'd want as much young 'totty' in the UK as possible, so R Anne: L Edward: genuinely no idea Wills: R Kate: R (because she knows that she has to support her husband, even when he's mistaken) Harry: Where's the party? Meghan: My friend Oprah said that Brexit was a terrible thing
Harry surely Leave: back then he was a lairy lad in the army. They are all Leave
Er, apart from 100% of the sample ex-HMF on PB that is (me, Dura and Carnyx IIRC - any more for any more?)
And HCav in particular generally are 50:50 Remain:Leave as of the sample I come into contact with. Much like the rest of the population.
This is moon abuse, by irresponsible billionaires with their over-expensive gadgets.
More seriously, we shouldn't be despoiling the moon.
1) It's the US governments responsibility - their mission. 2) Musk's rockets are much cheaper than anyone else's. 3) The moon is regularly bombarded by debris - about 2.8 tonnes of meteorite per day.
I'm sure there are things which are more futile than trying to ascribe personal political views to members of the Royal Family, but I can't immediately think of any.
If we ruled out futile political speculations on PB we’d have about 3 comments a day
My bet:
Queen: Leave The Late D of E: Leave Charles: Remain Andrew: Remoaner, wanted a 2nd vote Anne: Leave Edward: Remain Wills: Remain Kate: Leave Harry: Leave Megan: Not sure how Brexit benefits her, so probably Remain
Queen: definitely L D of E: probably L, but he'd want Greece and the UK tied together, so not a definite Charles: R Andrew: he'd want as much young 'totty' in the UK as possible, so R Anne: L Edward: genuinely no idea Wills: R Kate: R (because she knows that she has to support her husband, even when he's mistaken) Harry: Where's the party? Meghan: My friend Oprah said that Brexit was a terrible thing
Harry surely Leave: back then he was a lairy lad in the army. They are all Leave
Er, apart from 100% of the sample ex-HMF on PB that is (me, Dura and Carnyx IIRC - any more for any more?)
And HCav in particular generally are 50:50 Remain:Leave as of the sample I come into contact with. Much like the rest of the population.
But, with all due respect, you are all old (like me)
Younger military types are much Leavier. Especially the boozy laddish types like Harry (as was, RIP)
Harry is a boozy laddish HCav officer.
All the ex-servicemen I know (including a few under 30) were remainers. Sorry Leon, being a useful idiot for Putin doesn't exactly make you a patriot.
Nah, Harry is a Brexit backing traditionalist.
He did what his ancestors did, foreign princes going to Muslim lands and killing Muslims.
So many Brexiteers thought that St George was a Brexiteer, being a patriotic Englishman after all.
St George was a Turk, no? Or at least from what is now Turkey. Easy mistake to make for a Brexiter.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I don't think "not being DPP at the time" and other "facts" are going to get in the way of these criticisms of Starmer.
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
Does that make him bad? There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the law here. If there is insufficient evidence to prosecute DPPs generally don't decide to make some up.
A lot of people feel that an innocent person was shot dead, we know exactly who was involved in the shooting and the decision to shoot, therefore someone ought to be responsible and prosecuted.
Emily being helpful as ever, Lenin and Castro, your friendly neighbourhood lawyers turned leaders...but having to be dragged to say Thatcher at the end.
There is a strange mindset among some that can easily laud the likes of Lenin or Castro, leaders of brutal regimes, while finding it nearly impossible to give any credit to Thatcher for anything.
Maybe because I am not some party loyalist, but I don't have any issue in crediting Blair or Thatcher as leaders who were lawyers.
Having decided how the current royal family would have voted in the Brexit referendum, let's do the same with historic monarchs:
Edward VIII: would have found the EU insufficiently fascistic, and would have abstained Victoria: preferred Empire over European entanglements, Leave George IV: definitely a Remainer George III: Leaver George I: barely spoke English, Remain William & Mary: Remain Cromwell: Definitely Leave Elizabeth: Leave (bloody Spaniards) Henry VIII: Leave Henry V: Kept trying to join France - Remain
Why miss out George II? Actually led British troops against European armies, I think. Leave.
No, he wanted to hang onto his German lands. Definite Remain.
The unending supply of cnuts you've never heard of that the Tory party has in parliament never ceases to amaze me. At least in this time of crises he's concerning himself with the big issues.
With adjournment debate about to start, senior Cabinet minister tells me: “I think you can safely have an early night tonight.” Some backbenchers now predicting no PM statement on Gray report until Monday.
I wonder what Sue Gray will think about that, given that her apparently public call to publish 'within hours' has apparently been completely ignored. No doubt Johnson wants to calm down the momentum, and go through with individual MP's what's in the report first.
It is reported that the hold up is between Sue Gray and the Met on deciding on what can be released in view of the criminal investigation
A source for this, please ? There was certain amount of scepticism on the security aspect earlier, that I saw from various talking heads.
Sky news
Hmm. That may be what is going on, but it also seems prudent to reserve judgement about that, after what happened yesterday, and the official claims on delay that were later debunked.
The unending supply of cnuts you've never heard of that the Tory party has in parliament never ceases to amaze me. At least in this time of crises he's concerning himself with the big issues.
Its more a problem with MP's not being very good at social media. I did listen to what he had to say, and didn't find it that badly judged.
'received a complaint from a left wing whingebag, groaner, moaner, whatever it may be'
'I think it's quite tragic really that this Labour supporter, Labour member, maybe even a Labour councillor, y'know, who knows..'
It might even have been SKS!
Yeah, well the correct response is obviously to just apologise for not keeping his dogs on a lead, if that is the actual rule as it probably is because the Council followed it up with him. But I guess that a lot of people will have sympathy with his indifference towards people that make these kinds of complaints. At least he is doing his job.
This is moon abuse, by irresponsible billionaires with their over-expensive gadgets.
More seriously, we shouldn't be despoiling the moon.
1) It's the US governments responsibility - their mission. 2) Musk's rockets are much cheaper than anyone else's. 3) The moon is regularly bombarded by debris - about 2.8 tonnes of meteorite per day.
Apart from that, spot on.
I don't think that's any reason for us to add human debris, though. We're doing much the same with satellites and space junk. Also, it's arguably humanity's responsibility, rather than just the U.S. government's.
The unending supply of cnuts you've never heard of that the Tory party has in parliament never ceases to amaze me. At least in this time of crises he's concerning himself with the big issues.
Its more a problem with MP's not being very good at social media. I did listen to what he had to say, and didn't find it that badly judged.
'received a complaint from a left wing whingebag, groaner, moaner, whatever it may be'
'I think it's quite tragic really that this Labour supporter, Labour member, maybe even a Labour councillor, y'know, who knows..'
It might even have been SKS!
Amazing how the Tory mindset has changed in recent times: adherence to the law is now what only finicky, humourless, vindictive and curmudgeonly Lefties get bothered with. It can only be the rise of Trump/Boris that brought this about. I can't imagine it was a thing when even Theresa, May or IDS were around.
What he said seems entirely reasonable to me and it's quite pathetic if someone has taken a political opponents video and complained to authorities about dogs because they don't like the politician.
Trump famously hates dogs so he'd be on the side of the snitch.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
In fact - and maybe this'll be equally unexpected since you don't always pay attention - my view on Ref2, if we just strip out your hyperbole, was pretty much that. Ignoring the result of such a momentous enervating vote and doing it all over again was always, to me, a ludicrous (and not happening) notion.
But the politics steered Labour inexorably to where they got to with their Brexit policy. They couldn't leave the 'Remain after all' lane for the LDs to swim alone. That risked an electoral meltdown in 'young urban educated' Britain and the LDs maybe supplanting them as the main non-Tory party. That was the calculus. It's why they had to go the Ref2 route. Nobody's fault. Just the politics.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I don't think "not being DPP at the time" and other "facts" are going to get in the way of these criticisms of Starmer.
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
Does that make him bad? There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the law here. If there is insufficient evidence to prosecute DPPs generally don't decide to make some up.
A lot of people feel that an innocent person was shot dead, we know exactly who was involved in the shooting and the decision to shoot, therefore someone ought to be responsible and prosecuted.
Yet the Coroner came up with an open verdict and the original 2006 review of the case was that there wasn't enough evidence to get a conviction.
As I said earlier this was all covered before and there is no actual evidence that SKS had anything to do with these cases not being prosecuted.
This is moon abuse, by irresponsible billionaires with their over-expensive gadgets.
More seriously, we shouldn't be despoiling the moon.
1) It's the US governments responsibility - their mission. 2) Musk's rockets are much cheaper than anyone else's. 3) The moon is regularly bombarded by debris - about 2.8 tonnes of meteorite per day.
Apart from that, spot on.
If your shit lands on my lettuce patch, your all *******!
I'm sure there are things which are more futile than trying to ascribe personal political views to members of the Royal Family, but I can't immediately think of any.
If we ruled out futile political speculations on PB we’d have about 3 comments a day
My bet:
Queen: Leave The Late D of E: Leave Charles: Remain Andrew: Remoaner, wanted a 2nd vote Anne: Leave Edward: Remain Wills: Remain Kate: Leave Harry: Leave Megan: Not sure how Brexit benefits her, so probably Remain
Queen: definitely L D of E: probably L, but he'd want Greece and the UK tied together, so not a definite Charles: R Andrew: he'd want as much young 'totty' in the UK as possible, so R Anne: L Edward: genuinely no idea Wills: R Kate: R (because she knows that she has to support her husband, even when he's mistaken) Harry: Where's the party? Meghan: My friend Oprah said that Brexit was a terrible thing
Harry surely Leave: back then he was a lairy lad in the army. They are all Leave
Er, apart from 100% of the sample ex-HMF on PB that is (me, Dura and Carnyx IIRC - any more for any more?)
And HCav in particular generally are 50:50 Remain:Leave as of the sample I come into contact with. Much like the rest of the population.
But, with all due respect, you are all old (like me)
Younger military types are much Leavier. Especially the boozy laddish types like Harry (as was, RIP)
Harry is a boozy laddish HCav officer.
All the ex-servicemen I know (including a few under 30) were remainers. Sorry Leon, being a useful idiot for Putin doesn't exactly make you a patriot.
Nah, Harry is a Brexit backing traditionalist.
He did what his ancestors did, foreign princes going to Muslim lands and killing Muslims.
So many Brexiteers thought that St George was a Brexiteer, being a patriotic Englishman after all.
St George was a Turk, no? Or at least from what is now Turkey. Easy mistake to make for a Brexiter.
Back in 2008/09 the EDL were protesting in central Manchester, one chap had a banner saying that it was shameful that St George's heirs were forced to deal with so many immigrants in the UK.
O/T Would love to hear Priti’s thoughts (ok likely tumbleweed)…..
“The president of Fifa, Gianni Infantino, has said his plans for a World Cup every two years could stop African migrants from finding “death in the sea”, in an extraordinary address to European politicians.”
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
This is not how modern politics works
It is far, far more dangerous for a party leader to have held a job under continuous public scrutiny. Because there is plenty to criticise.
As director of public prosecutions, Starmer refused to prosecute the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
He did not cover himself in glory.
Did he?
The Jean Charles de Menezes stuff was before his time, as this article states it was in 2006, and he only became DPP in 2008.
I don't think "not being DPP at the time" and other "facts" are going to get in the way of these criticisms of Starmer.
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
In light of an Open verdict by a Coroner. Given that verdict the likely decision was even more likely to be no prosecution than the original decision.
One thing I've noticed about all these attacks on SKS is that they seem to pick the popular but easily explained ones never an obscure one where the decision could have gone either way.
Jimmy Saville?
Please share with us your expert legal opinion on what else he should have done?
Well as Saville abused 500+ victims over a four decade period the decision of the CPS to not prosecute due to insufficient evidence was rather odd.
What evidence was presented in a police case? That is the start point for the DPP, and if you can point to a police file that was submitted to not advanced then you have a point. I don't recall hearing of one, but then I may have missed it.
I know in various shows we have pathologists, CSIs, prosecutors, old ladies and even parish priests detecting, putting cases and the whole gamut, but I missed the 'Starmer: DPP' 6 part series where he end to end sleuthed to right every wrong.
With adjournment debate about to start, senior Cabinet minister tells me: “I think you can safely have an early night tonight.” Some backbenchers now predicting no PM statement on Gray report until Monday.
I wonder what Sue Gray will think about that, given that her apparently public call to publish 'within hours' has apparently been completely ignored. No doubt Johnson wants to calm down the momentum, and go through with individual MP's what's in the report first.
It is reported that the hold up is between Sue Gray and the Met on deciding on what can be released in view of the criminal investigation
A source for this, please ? There was certain amount of scepticism on the security aspect earlier, that I saw from various talking heads.
Sky news
Hmm. That may be what is going on, but it also seems prudent to reserve judgement about that, after what happened yesterday, and the official claims on delay that were later debunked.
Having decided how the current royal family would have voted in the Brexit referendum, let's do the same with historic monarchs:
Edward VIII: would have found the EU insufficiently fascistic, and would have abstained Victoria: preferred Empire over European entanglements, Leave George IV: definitely a Remainer George III: Leaver George I: barely spoke English, Remain William & Mary: Remain Cromwell: Definitely Leave Elizabeth: Leave (bloody Spaniards) Henry VIII: Leave Henry V: Kept trying to join France - Remain
Given how often people have earnestly recommended we "control our boarders", I'd say not speaking English is also compatible with Leave.
The boarders were the ones crossing the border...so not entirely wrong
Yes, the MSM tried to bury the fact that there were hoards.
Writing a brief for a recruitment firm. Had to add in something about me and the words "seasoned veteran" plopped out. I've been doing this shit for a few months off 20 years. No wonder my hair is going silver in increasing patches...
With adjournment debate about to start, senior Cabinet minister tells me: “I think you can safely have an early night tonight.” Some backbenchers now predicting no PM statement on Gray report until Monday.
I wonder what Sue Gray will think about that, given that her apparently public call to publish 'within hours' has apparently been completely ignored. No doubt Johnson wants to calm down the momentum, and go through with individual MP's what's in the report first.
It is reported that the hold up is between Sue Gray and the Met on deciding on what can be released in view of the criminal investigation
A source for this, please ? There was certain amount of scepticism on the security aspect earlier, that I saw from various talking heads.
Sky news
Hmm. That may be what is going on, but it also seems prudent to reserve judgement about that, after what happened yesterday, and the official claims on delay that were later debunked.
NuBanks even less. But their coverage, worldwide is lower.
The actual cost of transfer to the banks themselves is tiny, though. Crypto technology doesn't give any advantage, actually much the reverse.
But the point crypto people would argue is exactly the problem, the bank has all the power and as an individual you just get shafted. They can move some numbers around for very low cost, but then charge you an arm and a leg to send $100.
Also, in the developing world people aren't banked or don't have easy access to a bank, nor do they trust them.
Indeed, this is a point often missed.
Blockchain tech wasn't designed as a speculative asset, it was designed as a decentralised and personal alternative to the old ways of having bank act as gatekeeper and intermediary and demand a cut (some might say extort a cut) at every stage.
In many respects crypto is to banking as blogging was to journalism, a completely new technology that takes power out of the hands of the old gatekeepers and allows anyone to self publish, or in this case, be their own bank.
The unending supply of cnuts you've never heard of that the Tory party has in parliament never ceases to amaze me. At least in this time of crises he's concerning himself with the big issues.
Its more a problem with MP's not being very good at social media. I did listen to what he had to say, and didn't find it that badly judged.
'received a complaint from a left wing whingebag, groaner, moaner, whatever it may be'
'I think it's quite tragic really that this Labour supporter, Labour member, maybe even a Labour councillor, y'know, who knows..'
It might even have been SKS!
Amazing how the Tory mindset has changed in recent times: adherence to the law is now what only finicky, humourless, vindictive and curmudgeonly Lefties get bothered with. It can only be the rise of Trump/Boris that brought this about. I can't imagine it was a thing when even Theresa, May or IDS were around.
What he said seems entirely reasonable to me and it's quite pathetic if someone has taken a political opponents video and complained to authorities about dogs because they don't like the politician.
Trump famously hates dogs so he'd be on the side of the snitch.
He says in the clip that he doesn't know who the complainant was, which rather makes my point: in his eyes it's inconceivable that someone who wants the law upheld can be anything other than a Lefty.
I'm sure there are things which are more futile than trying to ascribe personal political views to members of the Royal Family, but I can't immediately think of any.
If we ruled out futile political speculations on PB we’d have about 3 comments a day
My bet:
Queen: Leave The Late D of E: Leave Charles: Remain Andrew: Remoaner, wanted a 2nd vote Anne: Leave Edward: Remain Wills: Remain Kate: Leave Harry: Leave Megan: Not sure how Brexit benefits her, so probably Remain
Queen: definitely L D of E: probably L, but he'd want Greece and the UK tied together, so not a definite Charles: R Andrew: he'd want as much young 'totty' in the UK as possible, so R Anne: L Edward: genuinely no idea Wills: R Kate: R (because she knows that she has to support her husband, even when he's mistaken) Harry: Where's the party? Meghan: My friend Oprah said that Brexit was a terrible thing
Harry surely Leave: back then he was a lairy lad in the army. They are all Leave
Er, apart from 100% of the sample ex-HMF on PB that is (me, Dura and Carnyx IIRC - any more for any more?)
And HCav in particular generally are 50:50 Remain:Leave as of the sample I come into contact with. Much like the rest of the population.
But, with all due respect, you are all old (like me)
Younger military types are much Leavier. Especially the boozy laddish types like Harry (as was, RIP)
Harry is a boozy laddish HCav officer.
All the ex-servicemen I know (including a few under 30) were remainers. Sorry Leon, being a useful idiot for Putin doesn't exactly make you a patriot.
The useful idiots for Putin are those like the Germans who want to tie our economic future to Putin's gas, Nord stream II and those who wish to tie our economic and strategic future to Germany.
Britain leaving that was against Putin's interest.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
In fact - and maybe this'll be equally unexpected since you don't always pay attention - my view on Ref2, if we just strip out your hyperbole, was pretty much that. Ignoring the result of such a momentous enervating vote and doing it all over again was always, to me, a ludicrous (and not happening) notion.
But the politics steered Labour inexorably to where they got to with their Brexit policy. They couldn't leave the 'Remain after all' lane for the LDs to swim alone. That risked an electoral meltdown in 'young urban educated' Britain and the LDs maybe supplanting them as the main non-Tory party. That was the calculus. It's why they had to go the Ref2 route. Nobody's fault. Just the politics.
Hmpft
OK bravo for your honesty, and - it may or may not surprise you - I do respect the fact that you said this from the get-go (if I recall correctly): We have to accept the vote. We did. and we have. Thank God.
However this does not excuse the position of the Labour Party. If we are to call for Boris’ resignation - AS I AM DOING - on the grounds he is a perennial and incurable liar, then Starmer should be nowhere near the leadership of the Opposition, given that he was calling for the cancellation of democracy via a 2nd vote, just two years ago
Boris could argue Oh it’s just politics, so could Starmer. I don’t fucking care. Sometimes you stoop so low mere political advantage is no excuse whatsoever. This applies to both of them. Boris is a lying oaf who must go. Starmer is a conniving anti-democrat who should not be where he is.
Having decided how the current royal family would have voted in the Brexit referendum, let's do the same with historic monarchs:
Edward VIII: would have found the EU insufficiently fascistic, and would have abstained Victoria: preferred Empire over European entanglements, Leave George IV: definitely a Remainer George III: Leaver George I: barely spoke English, Remain William & Mary: Remain Cromwell: Definitely Leave Elizabeth: Leave (bloody Spaniards) Henry VIII: Leave Henry V: Kept trying to join France - Remain
Given how often people have earnestly recommended we "control our boarders", I'd say not speaking English is also compatible with Leave.
The boarders were the ones crossing the border...so not entirely wrong
Yes, the MSM tried to bury the fact that there were hoards.
This is moon abuse, by irresponsible billionaires with their over-expensive gadgets.
More seriously, we shouldn't be despoiling the moon.
1) It's the US governments responsibility - their mission. 2) Musk's rockets are much cheaper than anyone else's. 3) The moon is regularly bombarded by debris - about 2.8 tonnes of meteorite per day.
Apart from that, spot on.
I don't think that's any reason for us to add human debris, though. We're doing much the same with satellites and space junk. Also, it's arguably humanity's responsibility, rather than just the U.S. government's.
Space junk in earth orbit is a big deal, and a serious problem. This simply isn't.
Comments
By setting the penalty of catching the virus high they would be hoping to encourage people to take more serious personal countermeasures to avoid catching it.
So it's trying to create a deterrent effect. Massive overreaction in the circumstances.
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/surveys/
It's a papal conclave type system. Parliamentarians and regional leaders vote as many times as necessary, bargaining in between, until a quorum level (66% dropping to 50% later) is reached. The 1000 or so votes are spread around hundreds of candidates, some officially proposed, some not, hundreds of the voting slips remain blank waiting for consensus to emerge.
In the first vote, the lead candidate got 36 of the 1000 votes, if history is a guide, the eventually selected candidate may have only obtained 3 or 4 votes at this stage. After the third ballot, the retiring incumbent leads with 125 votes - I think they are hoping to drag him back, with over 400 blank papers - it may still be that the eventual winner is nowhere to be seen. It's a jolly old process.
Sue Gray to issue her report as an NFT
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001324r
As I have pointed out, SKS was asked to review the decision of his predecessor.
Essentially.. I meant he ain't the man who's sweated over the design of the product he's 'selling'. Which makes his pitch a hollow edifice.
However much (eg) Blair was focused on the selling and dependent on clever people around him, you detect he was invested in what he was trying to achieve. As "Two Articles" Johnson has demonstrated throughout, he really would stand up and shill for baby slaughter if he thought Herod was sneaking up in the polls.
“Wayward SpaceX rocket booster predicted to crash into the moon in March”
https://news.sky.com/story/wayward-spacex-rocket-booster-predicted-to-crash-into-the-moon-in-march-12525923
I have board games night from 6pm and there is a strict ban on phones ...
It looks to me like the decision of an establishment stooge.
One thing I've noticed about all these attacks on SKS is that they seem to pick the popular but easily explained ones never an obscure one where the decision could have gone either way.
Edward VIII: would have found the EU insufficiently fascistic, and would have abstained
Victoria: preferred Empire over European entanglements, Leave
George IV: definitely a Remainer
George III: Leaver
George I: barely spoke English, Remain
William & Mary: Remain
Cromwell: Definitely Leave
Elizabeth: Leave (bloody Spaniards)
Henry VIII: Leave
Henry V: Kept trying to join France - Remain
More seriously, we shouldn't be despoiling the moon.
With adjournment debate about to start, senior Cabinet minister tells me: “I think you can safely have an early night tonight.” Some backbenchers now predicting no PM statement on Gray report until Monday.
https://twitter.com/joncraig/status/1486367853737656322
SKS got some decisions wrong. Some big ones wrong.
The report is not in yet - but when
Repeat and keep repeating
Is there no other news
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1486368657726971904?s=20
With adjournment debate about to start, senior Cabinet minister tells me: “I think you can safely have an early night tonight.” Some backbenchers now predicting no PM statement on Gray report until Monday.
https://twitter.com/joncraig/status/1486367853737656322?s=20
So the Welshman was pedalling fake news?
'I think it's quite tragic really that this Labour supporter, Labour member, maybe even a Labour councillor, y'know, who knows..'
It might even have been SKS!
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1486319760451194880?cxt=HHwWgMCyhdD8u6ApAAAA
"As a lawyer, if I say something even potentially misleading, I am required to immediately apologise and correct the record.
If I say something intentionally misleading, it is serious professional misconduct, for which I could lose my livelihood.
I see why this is alien to him."
Hard to prosecute a he said / she said case when none of the victims are willing to stand up in court to give evidence.
I can see why the decision was made not to prosecute - but the police should have done way more to change the victims minds - letting them know they weren't going to be the only witness would have helped a lot I suspect.
On 14 December 2006, Lord Justice Richards (Richards LJ) of the High Court, sitting with Mr Justice Forbes (Forbes J) and Mr Justice Mackay (Mackay J), unanimously rejected an application for a judicial review into the decision of the office of the DPP on behalf of the CPS to rule out criminal prosecutions of the individual police officers who shot dead Jean Charles de Menezes, ruling that "[I]t was a reasonable decision ... on the basis that they were likely to fail"
I don't quite see that makes him an establishment stooge if he subsequently decided a further review was therefore not warranted.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-britain-savile-idUSL1N2RP200
"In the interests of transparency and accountability, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, has decided that this detailed explanation of the circumstances surrounding Mr Tomlinson's death and the reasons for the decision not to bring a prosecution should be published."
The Guardian peddles fake news as well?
He did what his ancestors did, foreign princes going to Muslim lands and killing Muslims.
So many Brexiteers thought that St George was a Brexiteer, being a patriotic Englishman after all.
She will then order a pizza. Next stop after her house he delivers to the guardian.
But video footage will show she was naked when she opened the door to him, so it wasn’t a report she gave him.
Does this make sense?
None of those 500+ victims either went to the police or agreed to go to court were Saville prosecuted - so he wasn't because there wasn't any chance of conviction.
Starmer did eventually prosecute someone over Ian Tomlinson.
2) Musk's rockets are much cheaper than anyone else's.
3) The moon is regularly bombarded by debris - about 2.8 tonnes of meteorite per day.
Apart from that, spot on.
Deaths flatlining, admissions down (yay)
I see no reason why we won’t follow Denmark, and see another surge from kids plus BA2
This is, however, no reason to reimpose ANY restrictions. Omicron is here, in whatever format. Life is just riskier. That’s it
https://twitter.com/EmilyThornberry/status/1486345465746571278?s=20
Emily being helpful as ever, Lenin and Castro, your friendly neighbourhood lawyers turned leaders...but having to be dragged to say Thatcher at the end.
There is a strange mindset among some that can easily laud the likes of Lenin or Castro, leaders of brutal regimes, while finding it nearly impossible to give any credit to Thatcher for anything.
Maybe because I am not some party loyalist, but I don't have any issue in crediting Blair or Thatcher as leaders who were lawyers.
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1486368574683951109?t=5jRm-2iCwnm3qJJOWVgz8w&s=19
Trump famously hates dogs so he'd be on the side of the snitch.
But the politics steered Labour inexorably to where they got to with their Brexit policy. They couldn't leave the 'Remain after all' lane for the LDs to swim alone. That risked an electoral meltdown in 'young urban educated' Britain and the LDs maybe supplanting them as the main non-Tory party. That was the calculus. It's why they had to go the Ref2 route. Nobody's fault. Just the politics.
As I said earlier this was all covered before and there is no actual evidence that SKS had anything to do with these cases not being prosecuted.
Always amused me.
“The president of Fifa, Gianni Infantino, has said his plans for a World Cup every two years could stop African migrants from finding “death in the sea”, in an extraordinary address to European politicians.”
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/jan/26/fifa-gianni-infantino-biennial-world-cup-could-save-african-migrants-from-death-in-the-sea
The answer to everything must be “more football”.
I know in various shows we have pathologists, CSIs, prosecutors, old ladies and even parish priests detecting, putting cases and the whole gamut, but I missed the 'Starmer: DPP' 6 part series where he end to end sleuthed to right every wrong.
Britain leaving that was against Putin's interest.
OK bravo for your honesty, and - it may or may not surprise you - I do respect the fact that you said this from the get-go (if I recall correctly): We have to accept the vote. We did. and we have. Thank God.
However this does not excuse the position of the Labour Party. If we are to call for Boris’ resignation - AS I AM DOING - on the grounds he is a perennial and incurable liar, then Starmer should be nowhere near the leadership of the Opposition, given that he was calling for the cancellation of democracy via a 2nd vote, just two years ago
Boris could argue Oh it’s just politics, so could Starmer. I don’t fucking care. Sometimes you stoop so low mere political advantage is no excuse whatsoever. This applies to both of them. Boris is a lying oaf who must go. Starmer is a conniving anti-democrat who should not be where he is.
This simply isn't.
As for your numerical contention, what was the cases total last Wednesday?