At least some of the gatherings in question represent a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time.
iii. At times it seems there was too little thought given to what was happening across the country in considering the appropriateness of some of these gatherings, the risks they presented to public health and how they might appear to the public. There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times. Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did.
A cursory scan through looks as if there's some pointed criticism towards the end - "difficult to justify", but a curious and limp anti-climax at the beginning where she appears to be saying that the most interesting stuff isn't here. It also certainly looks very brief, as other people have noticed.
In a quick speed-read through, which may admittedly be wrong, the most notable part seems to be her obviously dim view of the government, rather than any more detailed conclusions.
"The police have confirmed that on the basis of the information available the gatherings on these four dates are not considered to have reached the threshold for criminal investigation"
“ In respect of the gatherings that the Metropolitan Police has assessed as not reaching the threshold for criminal investigation; they have not requested any limitations be placed on the description of those events, however, I have decided not to publish factual accounts in relation to those four dates. I do not feel that I am able to do so without detriment to the overall balance of the findings.“
So a rich guy offers some money to someone to stop tracking him and making the results public . Then withdraws the offer.
Not sure what is new and what is dystopian about this.
Firstly, someone is publishing real-time information, to the entire world, in an individual's location*. That's an element of the panopticon right there.
Then they are demanding payment to take that information down.
It's bad enough to have Google's servers tracking me and hassling me to review places I've been to, but at least they aren't asking for money not to put it up on twitter.
* Sure, actually only the jet, but amounts to the same thing often enough.
Is that not already visible on flightradar and similar?
Well, you can track whoever you want if you're prepared to pay enough people to physically follow them around - so the issue of making it easier to do so is relevant (which is why allowing people to hold data on you can be okay, but allowing them to freely share that data with other people, to combine with the data they hold on you, more often isn't).
What the kid has done here is to combine the data on jet registration with the data used by flight radar. The combination is intrusive.
So a rich guy offers some money to someone to stop tracking him and making the results public . Then withdraws the offer.
Not sure what is new and what is dystopian about this.
Firstly, someone is publishing real-time information, to the entire world, on an individual's location*. That's an element of the panopticon right there.
Then they are demanding payment to take that information down.
It's bad enough to have Google's servers tracking me and hassling me to review places I've been to, but at least they aren't asking for money not to put it up on twitter.
* Sure, actually only the jet, but amounts to the same thing often enough.
AIUI the information on the plane's location is pretty much public domain anyway; but he has to jump through hoops to ascertain information from anonymised data.
Also AIUI, this also not the only site tracking Musk's plane(s).
Musk made an offer, and the guy goes, "Sure, what about a bit more?" It's not him 'demanding' payment: the richest man in the world offered him money to do it. Wouldn't you see if he could pay a little more, or would you just cave in to his fame and influence?
"The police have confirmed that on the basis of the information available the gatherings on these four dates are not considered to have reached the threshold for criminal investigation"
The issues with how the SNP is approaching the trans issue raises issues which are far wider than the trans issue itself, which I am not going to go into.
These other issues are these:-
1. Consultation - the SNP's consultation appears to be limited to those organisations which support its policy and which are funded by it (see the next point). It is very determinedly not consulting those with reservations or concerns. It describes those concerns as "not valid" without bothering to hear them let alone engage with them. This is arrogant and leads to bad policy making.
2. Funding and the role of charities - there are quite a few charities which are very significantly or majority funded by government and use those funds for lobbying. It is a very closed circle and the question arises whether they can really be considered charities at all. If the only bodies you consult are those you fund and you only fund those bodies who agree with you you are simply talking to yourself. In a place where one party is electorally dominant this is dangerous. It leads to a lack of scrutiny. There is an issue with regulatory capture by lobby groups which needs closer scrutiny than it has been getting.
3. A lack of research - there is a marked reluctance to look for the actual facts relevant to the debate, something which a government should do before enacting far-reaching legal changes.
4. A failure - or refusal, perhaps - to understand that rights for one group need to be weighed in the balance against rights for other groups and other considerations. This is basic stuff, which is the very essence of law and the ECHR etc. Even the most cursory understanding of human rights law would tell you this and, yet, the Scottish government appears to be adopting an absolutist position which is - or may well be - contrary to the law applicable to Scotland.
5. Which brings me to the position of the EHRC - the body legally charged with overseeing human rights, specifically the rights under the Equality Act. The EHRC has raised concerns which need to be addressed and has, for its pains, received a load of abuse from some of the charities agitating for this change, some of whom have rather arrogantly said that they are cutting ties with it. As if the law - the Equality Act - is something that they can choose to ignore if they don't get their way. We ought all to be concerned, no matter what our views on the underlying issues, when bodies which seem to have such an influence on policy-making throw tantrums like this, behave like bulllies and adopt a "no debate" stance.
The approach recommended recently by the House of Commons Women & Equalities Committee is as below. It was completed after hearing submissions from all interested parties and comes down in favour of a de-medicalized gender transition process based on self-ID. Such is already the case in several countries.
It's being ignored by the UK government for reasons of populism not logic or science. So I really don't think it's fair to portray all of the cool calm rationality as being on one side of this debate and all of the jaundice and bullshit on the other.
The difficulty with that report is that, as has already been pointed out - by people who have actually transitioned - is that it contains some pretty fundamental mistakes about the current process. A report which does not understand the current law or gender recognition process and makes such mistakes is not really one to be relied on. See my point 3.
I'm not saying it's gospel but it is an authoritative report in an area prone to much misinformation and false assumption. And it comes down in favour of self-Id. As did the government when it looked into this in 2018. This approach is already taken by several countries and is about to be implemented in Germany.
My point really is that the "pro trans" case - agree with it or not - has plenty of reason and evidence behind it. It isn't a matter of howling superwoke twitter activists setting their face against biology and commonsense, hellbent on trampling all over women's rights.
I can't even imagine what an anti-trans case would look like. It's bloody hard to construct a case from the bible that God hates gays, though people manage it, and 100 times as hard to show he hates the trans. Christ seems OK with self-castration which is surely a pretty big clue.
The only problem here is numbers, and noise-to-signal. As I've said before, a high end estimate of m birth sex f gender people is 1 in 20,000, an estimate of men who are opportunistic c--ts is say 1 in 200 rising to 1 in 50 of the prison population. When you look at the number of m prisoners suddenly deciding they are f including lovely blokes like Ian Huntley, there's some fairly easy math you can do. And we should hate the fakers precisely for muddying the waters for the genuine.
A sensible comment - but where does JC say it's OK to chop off one's wollocks? (I do know about that odd self-castrating sect in Old Russia, but not on the biblical exegesis of that.)
Matthew
19. 1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;
2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Fuck knows what he is on about, theology not really my bag
ETA Mind you, if I were an anti trans Xtian I'd place a lot of weight on "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female..."
Ah, thank you.
On the other point, that is 'at the beginning' - so a bit dodgy to rely on that, the whole point of Christianity being that it is not so much an update of Judaism but a complete new religion (whatever JC might himself have thought, on which I am not competent to judge either).
- 15 May 2020 - 27 November 2020 - 10 December 2020 - 15 December 2020
Which means they are investigating
- 20 May 2020: a gathering in the garden of No 10 Downing Street for No 10 staff; - 18 June 2020: a gathering in the Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall on the departure of a No 10 private secretary; - 19 June 2020: a gathering in the Cabinet room in No 10 Downing Street on the Prime Minister’s birthday; - 13 November 2020: - a gathering in the No 10 Downing Street flat; - a gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of a special adviser; - 17 December 2020: - a gathering in Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall to hold an online Christmas quiz for the Cabinet Secretary’s private office; - a gathering in Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall on the departure of a senior Cabinet Office official. - a gathering in No 10 DowningStreet on the departure of a No 10 official; - 18 December 2020: a gathering in No 10 Downing Street ahead of the Christmas break; - 14 January 2021; a gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of two No 10 private secretaries; - 16 April 2021; - A gatheringinNo10DowningStreetonthedepartureofaseniorNo10 official; - A gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of another No 10 official.
"The police have confirmed that on the basis of the information available the gatherings on these four dates are not considered to have reached the threshold for criminal investigation"
"The police have confirmed that on the basis of the information available the gatherings on these four dates are not considered to have reached the threshold for criminal investigation"
The key for Boris
No, mate, those are the 4 *exceptions* in a list of 16 incidents under investigation. 12 crimes.
Clearly a condemnation but I expect Boris Johnson will kick the can down the road and his lily-livered MPs will fail to realise the gravity and will let him get away with it.
1) even if the visitor is vaccinated? and 2) what - forever?
Is what people such as @Malmesbury and the rest are struggling with. Yes it would be forever. And should have been for the past five and more decades on account of the flu. Which would have killed @Malmesbury's aunt had someone visited or treated her with it is the thinking.
It would have to be forever. For @BartholomewRoberts it would be masks and social distancing and NPIs in hospitals forever. Because there are vulnerable people in hospitals. Even those he might pass on their way out for a crafty fag. .
And also Malmesbury and others (contra Foxy, as per his posts below which carry bags more authority than mine) will not accept that coming in close contact with someone with the virus is more germane than whether that person is vaccinated or not. Remarkable really.
Given that everyone concerned being vaccinated is one of the best ways of ensuring that close contact does not occur your comment is rather self defeating. Should we also lift the requirements for front line staff to be vaccinated against MMR and TB?
"At times it seems there was too little thought given to what was happening across the country in considering the appropriateness of some of these gatherings, the risks they presented to public health and how they might appear to the public. There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times. Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did. "
What on earth is the point of the Sue Gray report, if it's only allowed to contain proper findings about events that the police have investigated and concluded aren't an issue?
"The police have confirmed that on the basis of the information available the gatherings on these four dates are not considered to have reached the threshold for criminal investigation"
The key for Boris
No, mate, those are the 4 *exceptions* in a list of 16 incidents under investigation. 12 crimes.
Don’t let facts get in the way of a good white wash
"The police have confirmed that on the basis of the information available the gatherings on these four dates are not considered to have reached the threshold for criminal investigation"
The key for Boris
How you manage to extract 4 events out of 12 that aren't being investigated as "the key" is a mystery known only to yourself and your Ministry for Truth.
"At times it seems there was too little thought given to what was happening across the country in considering the appropriateness of some of these gatherings, the risks they presented to public health and how they might appear to the public. There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times. Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did. "
Yes - this was the bit that struck me, too. Not much detail, and she's making it clear she can't offer much, but this seems about firm as it could be, within the reduced limits she's stuck with.
Interesting comment. Not really political but sounds like a good point that the media won't be interested in, but I wonder if change will happen on this?
The number of staff working in No 10 Downing Street has steadily increased in recent years. In terms of size, scale and range of responsibility it is now more akin to a small Government Department than purely a dedicated Prime Minister’s office. The structures that support the smooth operation of Downing Street, however, have not evolved sufficiently to meet the demands of this expansion. The leadership structures are fragmented and complicated and this has sometimes led to the blurring of lines of accountability. Too much responsibility and expectation is placed on the senior official whose principal function is the direct support of the Prime Minister. This should be addressed as a matter of priority.
The issues with how the SNP is approaching the trans issue raises issues which are far wider than the trans issue itself, which I am not going to go into.
These other issues are these:-
1. Consultation - the SNP's consultation appears to be limited to those organisations which support its policy and which are funded by it (see the next point). It is very determinedly not consulting those with reservations or concerns. It describes those concerns as "not valid" without bothering to hear them let alone engage with them. This is arrogant and leads to bad policy making.
2. Funding and the role of charities - there are quite a few charities which are very significantly or majority funded by government and use those funds for lobbying. It is a very closed circle and the question arises whether they can really be considered charities at all. If the only bodies you consult are those you fund and you only fund those bodies who agree with you you are simply talking to yourself. In a place where one party is electorally dominant this is dangerous. It leads to a lack of scrutiny. There is an issue with regulatory capture by lobby groups which needs closer scrutiny than it has been getting.
3. A lack of research - there is a marked reluctance to look for the actual facts relevant to the debate, something which a government should do before enacting far-reaching legal changes.
4. A failure - or refusal, perhaps - to understand that rights for one group need to be weighed in the balance against rights for other groups and other considerations. This is basic stuff, which is the very essence of law and the ECHR etc. Even the most cursory understanding of human rights law would tell you this and, yet, the Scottish government appears to be adopting an absolutist position which is - or may well be - contrary to the law applicable to Scotland.
5. Which brings me to the position of the EHRC - the body legally charged with overseeing human rights, specifically the rights under the Equality Act. The EHRC has raised concerns which need to be addressed and has, for its pains, received a load of abuse from some of the charities agitating for this change, some of whom have rather arrogantly said that they are cutting ties with it. As if the law - the Equality Act - is something that they can choose to ignore if they don't get their way. We ought all to be concerned, no matter what our views on the underlying issues, when bodies which seem to have such an influence on policy-making throw tantrums like this, behave like bulllies and adopt a "no debate" stance.
The approach recommended recently by the House of Commons Women & Equalities Committee is as below. It was completed after hearing submissions from all interested parties and comes down in favour of a de-medicalized gender transition process based on self-ID. Such is already the case in several countries.
It's being ignored by the UK government for reasons of populism not logic or science. So I really don't think it's fair to portray all of the cool calm rationality as being on one side of this debate and all of the jaundice and bullshit on the other.
Self-id is not "supported by science". Biological sex (unchangeable in mammals) is an important characteristic for certain situations and that should be the case in law. They include women's sports, refuges, prisons, changing facilities etc. Allowing access to self-id trans individuals who have not transitioned medically? What could possibly go wrong? (Clue: it already has.) Access to transitioned individuals is reasonable in some cases. In some situations gender-id including self-id should apply but not at the expense of female rights. Another real problem is age of consent to irreversible medical procedures.
I didn't say it was supported by science. Neither does science preclude it. Birth sex is a fact. Legal gender is a fact. They are aligned for most, for a minority not. The questions are (i) what should the process be for changing gender? and (ii) what controls are needed for safety and fairness?
I'm in favour of self-Id as the basis for a legal change of gender and a default of trans inclusion for single sex spaces. Exclusion should be limited to areas (eg sports, sex offender prisoners) where it can be justified on the basis of reason not prejudice.
You and others (which I know is most on here) are welcome to disagree. But please note that the Commons Committee looked at this, took evidence and submission from all sides, and concluded in support of self-Id. Self-Id is in place in several countries and has not led to serious problems. Germany is about to adopt this approach.
This is not a 'science vs feelings' or a 'commonsense vs woke' debate. It gets presented that way but it isn't. Much of the argument for self-Id is evidence led and rational. Much of the argument against it is emotive and illogical.
Great - we can agree on all of that. Once one accepts that gender is different from sex, and that an individual is at liberty to identify as any gender they like, then much of the way forward is clear.
I think at the heart of it is what things should be governed (i) by legal gender (ii) by birth sex or (iii) by neither. The more of (iii) we have the less of an issue we have. But there will always be things where (i) or (ii) is more appropriate.
...some of the behaviour surrounding these gatherings is difficult to justify.
... a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time.
...failures of leadership and judgment...
...staff wanted to raise concerns about behaviours they witnessed at work but at times felt unable to do so.
"The police have confirmed that on the basis of the information available the gatherings on these four dates are not considered to have reached the threshold for criminal investigation"
The key for Boris
Well, at least the report has clearly established one thing - you can't read.
- 15 May 2020 - 27 November 2020 - 10 December 2020 - 15 December 2020
Which means they are investigating
- 20 May 2020: a gathering in the garden of No 10 Downing Street for No 10 staff; - 18 June 2020: a gathering in the Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall on the departure of a No 10 private secretary; - 19 June 2020: a gathering in the Cabinet room in No 10 Downing Street on the Prime Minister’s birthday; - 13 November 2020: - a gathering in the No 10 Downing Street flat; - a gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of a special adviser; - 17 December 2020: - a gathering in Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall to hold an online Christmas quiz for the Cabinet Secretary’s private office; - a gathering in Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall on the departure of a senior Cabinet Office official. - a gathering in No 10 DowningStreet on the departure of a No 10 official; - 18 December 2020: a gathering in No 10 Downing Street ahead of the Christmas break; - 14 January 2021; a gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of two No 10 private secretaries; - 16 April 2021; - A gatheringinNo10DowningStreetonthedepartureofaseniorNo10 official; - A gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of another No 10 official.
“ In respect of the gatherings that the Metropolitan Police has assessed as not reaching the threshold for criminal investigation; they have not requested any limitations be placed on the description of those events, however, I have decided not to publish factual accounts in relation to those four dates. I do not feel that I am able to do so without detriment to the overall balance of the findings.“
And also decided not to do so for the others, as a result.
Gray – as I predicted – tells us exactly what we already knew.
The report 'update' is quite damning in its own narrow way, but its findings will surprise precisely nobody.
No. Yes No 10 and Cabinet Office could have done better, reforms needed, blah blah but nothing criminal.
Now over to Tory MPs to see if 54 of them will now submit the letters needed for a VONC in the PM.
I think that is more likely than not to happen but I still think Boris will then narrowly survive any such vote.
There is no killer for Boris in this report
Nothing criminal, because the matters that are potentially criminal are being investigated by the police and this report doesn't want to prejudice that.
What on earth is the point of the Sue Gray report, if it's only allowed to contain proper findings about events that the police have investigated and concluded aren't an issue?
She hasn’t included those - in her own words;
“In respect of the gatherings that the Metropolitan Police has assessed as not reaching the threshold for criminal investigation; they have not requested any limitations be placed on the description of those events, however, I have decided not to publish factual accounts in relation to those four dates. I do not feel that I am able to do so without detriment to the overall balance of the findings.”
"The police have confirmed that on the basis of the information available the gatherings on these four dates are not considered to have reached the threshold for criminal investigation"
What on earth is the point of the Sue Gray report, if it's only allowed to contain proper findings about events that the police have investigated and concluded aren't an issue?
And chooses not to contain proper findings about those either, on grounds of good taste. Or something.
- 15 May 2020 - 27 November 2020 - 10 December 2020 - 15 December 2020
Which means they are investigating
- 20 May 2020: a gathering in the garden of No 10 Downing Street for No 10 staff; - 18 June 2020: a gathering in the Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall on the departure of a No 10 private secretary; - 19 June 2020: a gathering in the Cabinet room in No 10 Downing Street on the Prime Minister’s birthday; - 13 November 2020: - a gathering in the No 10 Downing Street flat; - a gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of a special adviser; - 17 December 2020: - a gathering in Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall to hold an online Christmas quiz for the Cabinet Secretary’s private office; - a gathering in Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall on the departure of a senior Cabinet Office official. - a gathering in No 10 DowningStreet on the departure of a No 10 official; - 18 December 2020: a gathering in No 10 Downing Street ahead of the Christmas break; - 14 January 2021; a gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of two No 10 private secretaries; - 16 April 2021; - A gatheringinNo10DowningStreetonthedepartureofaseniorNo10 official; - A gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of another No 10 official.
That's a lot of £100 fines.
I thought that the fines would be in-applicable after a certain period of time - so they must be investigating other types of offence.
It does somehat evoke the sort of very short essay, with double spacing, that Boris Johnson might have handed in at the last minute at Oxford, after a hard weekend.
However, there's some quite angry words from his tutor towards the end, written in.
Note the reference in the 3rd paragraph to "adherence to the guidance in place at the time".
The words in bold are critical. Guidance is not law. A breach of guidance does not mean that a breach of the law was committed.
In one sense this is helpful to the PM. In another it very much isn't because (a) he said to Parliament that the guidelines were followed and (b) it looks as if he and his staff could not be bothered to do what they were asking the rest of the country to do.
What on earth is the point of the Sue Gray report, if it's only allowed to contain proper findings about events that the police have investigated and concluded aren't an issue?
And chooses not to contain proper findings about those either, on grounds of good taste. Or something.
Surely on the grounds of preventing Johnson claiming the matter is closed?
"The police have confirmed that on the basis of the information available the gatherings on these four dates are not considered to have reached the threshold for criminal investigation"
- 15 May 2020 - 27 November 2020 - 10 December 2020 - 15 December 2020
Which means they are investigating
- 20 May 2020: a gathering in the garden of No 10 Downing Street for No 10 staff; - 18 June 2020: a gathering in the Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall on the departure of a No 10 private secretary; - 19 June 2020: a gathering in the Cabinet room in No 10 Downing Street on the Prime Minister’s birthday; - 13 November 2020: - a gathering in the No 10 Downing Street flat; - a gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of a special adviser; - 17 December 2020: - a gathering in Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall to hold an online Christmas quiz for the Cabinet Secretary’s private office; - a gathering in Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall on the departure of a senior Cabinet Office official. - a gathering in No 10 DowningStreet on the departure of a No 10 official; - 18 December 2020: a gathering in No 10 Downing Street ahead of the Christmas break; - 14 January 2021; a gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of two No 10 private secretaries; - 16 April 2021; - A gatheringinNo10DowningStreetonthedepartureofaseniorNo10 official; - A gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of another No 10 official.
That's a lot of £100 fines.
I thought that the fines would be in-applicable after a certain period of time - so they must be investigating other types of offence.
- 15 May 2020 - 27 November 2020 - 10 December 2020 - 15 December 2020
Which means they are investigating
- 20 May 2020: a gathering in the garden of No 10 Downing Street for No 10 staff; - 18 June 2020: a gathering in the Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall on the departure of a No 10 private secretary; - 19 June 2020: a gathering in the Cabinet room in No 10 Downing Street on the Prime Minister’s birthday; - 13 November 2020: - a gathering in the No 10 Downing Street flat; - a gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of a special adviser; - 17 December 2020: - a gathering in Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall to hold an online Christmas quiz for the Cabinet Secretary’s private office; - a gathering in Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall on the departure of a senior Cabinet Office official. - a gathering in No 10 DowningStreet on the departure of a No 10 official; - 18 December 2020: a gathering in No 10 Downing Street ahead of the Christmas break; - 14 January 2021; a gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of two No 10 private secretaries; - 16 April 2021; - A gatheringinNo10DowningStreetonthedepartureofaseniorNo10 official; - A gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of another No 10 official.
That's a lot of £100 fines.
Does the cash go direct to the NHS? If so , kerching!
- 15 May 2020 - 27 November 2020 - 10 December 2020 - 15 December 2020
Which means they are investigating
- 20 May 2020: a gathering in the garden of No 10 Downing Street for No 10 staff; - 18 June 2020: a gathering in the Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall on the departure of a No 10 private secretary; - 19 June 2020: a gathering in the Cabinet room in No 10 Downing Street on the Prime Minister’s birthday; - 13 November 2020: - a gathering in the No 10 Downing Street flat; - a gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of a special adviser; - 17 December 2020: - a gathering in Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall to hold an online Christmas quiz for the Cabinet Secretary’s private office; - a gathering in Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall on the departure of a senior Cabinet Office official. - a gathering in No 10 DowningStreet on the departure of a No 10 official; - 18 December 2020: a gathering in No 10 Downing Street ahead of the Christmas break; - 14 January 2021; a gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of two No 10 private secretaries; - 16 April 2021; - A gatheringinNo10DowningStreetonthedepartureofaseniorNo10 official; - A gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of another No 10 official.
When you look at that, it is absolutely staggering. Did no-one think "er, this might not look good if it got out?" . If a CEO of a company allowed such a level of rule breaking they would be removed from office for breaches of fiduciary duty.
Note the reference in the 3rd paragraph to "adherence to the guidance in place at the time".
The words in bold are critical. Guidance is not law. A breach of guidance does not mean that a breach of the law was committed.
In one sense this is helpful to the PM. In another it very much isn't because (a) he said to Parliament that the guidelines were followed and (b) it looks as if he and his staff could not be bothered to do what they were asking the rest of the country to do.
Anyway am off for a bit. Have fun everyone.
It looks as if Gray's quite angry-sounding "editorial" section, towards the end, is saying that the guidance framework has clearly not been followed, if I have that right.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
It is about not to be gross misconduct if we are to believe the rumour mill about the forthcoming u-turn.
Because brighter people than PB posters have assessed the cost-benefit and determined that the benefit of having people there jabbed or otherwise outweighs the cost of the risk of passing on the virus.
As @jonny83 noted earlier - his Trust has a 90% flu jab take up but it was never mandatory. I presume the Trust didn't sack the unjabbed 10%. We can ask him why that was the case.
Not for care staff.
Unvaccinated care staff were sacked months ago. Care homes continued to operate without them for the last couple of months.
Do you happen to know whether this resulted in any excess mortality for anyone in those care homes.
Study for care homes with low versus high rates of vaccination for staff in the US is available:
Note the reference in the 3rd paragraph to "adherence to the guidance in place at the time".
The words in bold are critical. Guidance is not law. A breach of guidance does not mean that a breach of the law was committed.
In one sense this is helpful to the PM. In another it very much isn't because (a) he said to Parliament that the guidelines were followed and (b) it looks as if he and his staff could not be bothered to do what they were asking the rest of the country to do.
Anyway am off for a bit. Have fun everyone.
Would I be in correct in thinking the Met are only interested in breaches of law, not breaches of guidance?
The issues with how the SNP is approaching the trans issue raises issues which are far wider than the trans issue itself, which I am not going to go into.
These other issues are these:-
1. Consultation - the SNP's consultation appears to be limited to those organisations which support its policy and which are funded by it (see the next point). It is very determinedly not consulting those with reservations or concerns. It describes those concerns as "not valid" without bothering to hear them let alone engage with them. This is arrogant and leads to bad policy making.
2. Funding and the role of charities - there are quite a few charities which are very significantly or majority funded by government and use those funds for lobbying. It is a very closed circle and the question arises whether they can really be considered charities at all. If the only bodies you consult are those you fund and you only fund those bodies who agree with you you are simply talking to yourself. In a place where one party is electorally dominant this is dangerous. It leads to a lack of scrutiny. There is an issue with regulatory capture by lobby groups which needs closer scrutiny than it has been getting.
3. A lack of research - there is a marked reluctance to look for the actual facts relevant to the debate, something which a government should do before enacting far-reaching legal changes.
4. A failure - or refusal, perhaps - to understand that rights for one group need to be weighed in the balance against rights for other groups and other considerations. This is basic stuff, which is the very essence of law and the ECHR etc. Even the most cursory understanding of human rights law would tell you this and, yet, the Scottish government appears to be adopting an absolutist position which is - or may well be - contrary to the law applicable to Scotland.
5. Which brings me to the position of the EHRC - the body legally charged with overseeing human rights, specifically the rights under the Equality Act. The EHRC has raised concerns which need to be addressed and has, for its pains, received a load of abuse from some of the charities agitating for this change, some of whom have rather arrogantly said that they are cutting ties with it. As if the law - the Equality Act - is something that they can choose to ignore if they don't get their way. We ought all to be concerned, no matter what our views on the underlying issues, when bodies which seem to have such an influence on policy-making throw tantrums like this, behave like bulllies and adopt a "no debate" stance.
The approach recommended recently by the House of Commons Women & Equalities Committee is as below. It was completed after hearing submissions from all interested parties and comes down in favour of a de-medicalized gender transition process based on self-ID. Such is already the case in several countries.
It's being ignored by the UK government for reasons of populism not logic or science. So I really don't think it's fair to portray all of the cool calm rationality as being on one side of this debate and all of the jaundice and bullshit on the other.
The difficulty with that report is that, as has already been pointed out - by people who have actually transitioned - is that it contains some pretty fundamental mistakes about the current process. A report which does not understand the current law or gender recognition process and makes such mistakes is not really one to be relied on. See my point 3.
I'm not saying it's gospel but it is an authoritative report in an area prone to much misinformation and false assumption. And it comes down in favour of self-Id. As did the government when it looked into this in 2018. This approach is already taken by several countries and is about to be implemented in Germany.
My point really is that the "pro trans" case - agree with it or not - has plenty of reason and evidence behind it. It isn't a matter of howling superwoke twitter activists setting their face against biology and commonsense, hellbent on trampling all over women's rights.
I can't even imagine what an anti-trans case would look like. It's bloody hard to construct a case from the bible that God hates gays, though people manage it, and 100 times as hard to show he hates the trans. Christ seems OK with self-castration which is surely a pretty big clue.
The only problem here is numbers, and noise-to-signal. As I've said before, a high end estimate of m birth sex f gender people is 1 in 20,000, an estimate of men who are opportunistic c--ts is say 1 in 200 rising to 1 in 50 of the prison population. When you look at the number of m prisoners suddenly deciding they are f including lovely blokes like Ian Huntley, there's some fairly easy math you can do. And we should hate the fakers precisely for muddying the waters for the genuine.
Yep, there are cases like that. When (eg) a sex offending male reveals they are in fact a woman and wish to serve their time in a female prison, it's in no way prejudiced to deny that claim on a probabilities ticket.
"Nicola Sturgeon has questioned the UK’s equality watchdog after it urged the Scottish Government to carry out "more detailed consideration" of plans to reform gender recognition laws."
The issue is undoubtedly being used as a proxy for internal SNP feuds with Joanna Cherry getting a lot of grief for her stance on the issue (as has, of course, J K Rowling, a Scottish resident and Indy-sceptic).
Personally, I find it all a bit bewildering, TBH.
Most of Sturgeon's inner circle are halfwits obsessed with self ID and all the crap that goes with it. They supposedly had public consultaions but only talked to the bunch of halfwits that they fund , the same halfwits that are pushing self ID. Now that teh chaicanery is getting publicity it will be interesting to see if the timid , spineless SNP MSP's stay the course and follow the orders. Labour are just as bad.
This kind of bigoted transphobia is why the ALBA party is going nowhere and Scotland will never become independent.
Away you halfwit, take your woke gender ID garbage and stick it up your fundamental. Anybody stupid enough to try and pretend that a man with tackle is a woman deserves all they get. Trying to whine taht people are transphobic just shows the pucity of their argument. No man with a penis should be desperate to get into womens safe spaces and anyone that supports it is pathetic.
Though existing law does require just that.
In order to get gender surgery, it is nessecary to live as a woman for 2 years or longer, hence there is a requirement for pre-surgical Trans people to access single sex spaces opposite to their assigned sex.
What I find less comprehensible are people who are neither taking hormones, nor planning surgery to claim that they are women.
Though existing law does not permit men to enter women's safe spaces.
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
You have to admire their courage coming on for the first time and taking on @malcolmg . Very impressed or just full of beer and looking for a fight.
The t***s debate excites tremendous passion on both sides. PB is of course a forum for passionate debate so we will have to see how our new arrivals roll out their strategy.
And as you say what a cracking baptism of fire with @malcolmg. .
Personally I find malcolmg’s endless invective tiresome & wonder occasionally why OGH puts up with someone who contributes little to the site except insulting contributors who happen to disagree with them. What exactly are they contributing except bile + scorn to the discussion?
But it’s OGH’s site & they get to set the terms.
(This is an honest question: pointers to quality malcolmg comments that balance out the invective gratefully received.)
Yes great content from a lightweight. Give us a clue as to any value you have added here or to the world you numpty dunderheided clown. Personally I think you are a real fanny but previously would have had the decency to refrain from commenting , however given you have stuck your big gob in I feel free to tell you. Jog on loser.
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
I’m going to sit back and watch. My money would be on Malc
What, on him being predictably abusive and inarticulate? I have never seen him "win" an argument on here. He just hurls abuse at people because of his inability to ever frame an argument. I now predict an inevitable torrent of abuse in my direction, which I will have the disappointment of not responding to because I will go to lunch. He is the PB pub bore. I know I should avoid him, but someone as rude and obnoxious as he is deserves a regular verbal kicking, even though he keeps coming back for more.
Deluded scumbag in dreamland yet again , back to playing with the 7 year olds where you belong lowlife.
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
You have to admire their courage coming on for the first time and taking on @malcolmg . Very impressed or just full of beer and looking for a fight.
The t***s debate excites tremendous passion on both sides. PB is of course a forum for passionate debate so we will have to see how our new arrivals roll out their strategy.
And as you say what a cracking baptism of fire with @malcolmg. .
Personally I find malcolmg’s endless invective tiresome & wonder occasionally why OGH puts up with someone who contributes little to the site except insulting contributors who happen to disagree with them. What exactly are they contributing except bile + scorn to the discussion?
But it’s OGH’s site & they get to set the terms.
(This is an honest question: pointers to quality malcolmg comments that balance out the invective gratefully received.)
Who asked you jessie boy. Having never heard of you I canonly assume you are a boring fart who lurks in teh shadows, light on but no-one in. Jog on, why would I care what a loser like you thinks about my posts.
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
That is their standard remit, they gang up on people and accuse them of transphobia, never have any arguments to support their positions unless it is downright lies.
That seems to be the M.O. of the Trans Rights Fanatics. No arguments to support their views just wild accusations and blatant misrepresentations.
Comments
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1488156730425057282
so what.
In a quick speed-read through, which may admittedly be wrong, the most notable part seems to be her obviously dim view of the government, rather than any more detailed conclusions.
gatherings on these four dates are not considered to have reached the threshold
for criminal investigation"
“ In respect of the gatherings that the Metropolitan Police has assessed as not reaching the threshold for criminal investigation; they have not requested any limitations be placed on the description of those events, however, I have decided not to publish factual accounts in relation to those four dates. I do not feel that I am
able to do so without detriment to the overall balance of the findings.“
What the kid has done here is to combine the data on jet registration with the data used by flight radar. The combination is intrusive.
Also AIUI, this also not the only site tracking Musk's plane(s).
Musk made an offer, and the guy goes, "Sure, what about a bit more?" It's not him 'demanding' payment: the richest man in the world offered him money to do it. Wouldn't you see if he could pay a little more, or would you just cave in to his fame and influence?
https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1488157230910394370
"it is not possible at present to provide a meaningful report setting out and analysing the extensive factual information"
On the other point, that is 'at the beginning' - so a bit dodgy to rely on that, the whole point of Christianity being that it is not so much an update of Judaism but a complete new religion (whatever JC might himself have thought, on which I am not competent to judge either).
- 15 May 2020
- 27 November 2020
- 10 December 2020
- 15 December 2020
Which means they are investigating
- 20 May 2020: a gathering in the garden of No 10 Downing Street for No 10 staff;
- 18 June 2020: a gathering in the Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall on the departure of a No 10 private secretary;
- 19 June 2020: a gathering in the Cabinet room in No 10 Downing Street on the Prime Minister’s birthday;
- 13 November 2020:
- a gathering in the No 10 Downing Street flat;
- a gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of a special adviser;
- 17 December 2020:
- a gathering in Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall to hold an online Christmas quiz for the Cabinet Secretary’s private office;
- a gathering in Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall on the departure of a senior Cabinet Office official.
- a gathering in No 10 DowningStreet on the departure of a No 10 official;
- 18 December 2020: a gathering in No 10 Downing Street ahead of the Christmas break;
- 14 January 2021; a gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of two No 10 private secretaries;
- 16 April 2021;
- A gatheringinNo10DowningStreetonthedepartureofaseniorNo10 official;
- A gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of another No 10 official.
The report 'update' is quite damning in its own narrow way, but its findings will surprise precisely nobody.
Until 2024, then.
across the country in considering the appropriateness of some of these
gatherings, the risks they presented to public health and how they might appear
to the public. There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts
of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times. Some of the events should
not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been
allowed to develop as they did. "
If serious failings have taken place - we will want to see what these were and who was involved
Gray refuses to publish factual account until she can do so for all 16
All pressure on the Met now.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/unvaccinated-man-rejects-life-saving-kidney-transplant-and-says-he-will-die-free/vi-AATk4bR?ocid=entnewsntp
Now over to Tory MPs to see if 54 of them will now submit the letters needed for a VONC in the PM.
I think that is more likely than not to happen but I still think Boris will then narrowly survive any such vote.
There is no killer for Boris in this report
The number of staff working in No 10 Downing Street has steadily increased in
recent years. In terms of size, scale and range of responsibility it is now more
akin to a small Government Department than purely a dedicated Prime
Minister’s office. The structures that support the smooth operation of Downing
Street, however, have not evolved sufficiently to meet the demands of this
expansion. The leadership structures are fragmented and complicated and this
has sometimes led to the blurring of lines of accountability. Too much
responsibility and expectation is placed on the senior official whose principal
function is the direct support of the Prime Minister. This should be addressed
as a matter of priority.
... a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of
Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time.
...failures of leadership and judgment...
...staff wanted to raise concerns about behaviours they witnessed at work but at times felt unable to do so.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-into-alleged-gatherings-on-government-premises-during-covid-restrictions-update
“In respect of the gatherings that the Metropolitan Police has assessed as not reaching the threshold for criminal investigation; they have not requested any limitations be placed on the description of those events, however, I have decided not to publish factual accounts in relation to those four dates. I do not feel that I am
able to do so without detriment to the overall balance of the findings.”
She’s gutted her own report in protest.
Is there anything in this teaser report that contradicts what the PM has said in Parliament?
Will the government publish the full report once the Met have done their business?
And a bigger question:
We've all sort-of assumed that a PM telling Parliament an untruth will be the end of him. Will it?
She couldn't have made it clearer that's not the case.
New Thread
With a prediction from me already in place.@PB_Lawyers?
Are you trolling or are you just incredibly stupid?
However, there's some quite angry words from his tutor towards the end, written in.
These are here - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1039751/Terms_of_Reference_-_Cabinet_Secretary_Investigations_-_December_2021.docx.pdf.
Note the reference in the 3rd paragraph to "adherence to the guidance in place at the time".
The words in bold are critical. Guidance is not law. A breach of guidance does not mean that a breach of the law was committed.
In one sense this is helpful to the PM. In another it very much isn't because (a) he said to Parliament that the guidelines were followed and (b) it looks as if he and his staff could not be bothered to do what they were asking the rest of the country to do.
Anyway am off for a bit. Have fun everyone.
From this study: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2115674
Edit: Sorry - misread; I thought you were looking for evidence as to higher mortality due to staff being unvaccinated.