Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.
And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?
So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.
For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
I've posted the report from the relevant House of Commons Committee which after taking evidence from all sides recommends self-Id as the way forward. I've also pointed out that this confirms the conclusions of the UK government when it looked into this previously in 2018. I've further pointed out that several countries have adopted this approach (and have no plans to reverse it) and that Germany is about to. Like it or not these are solid points. I've also sought to explain at length why imo it is illogical (and tbh rather noxious) to present self-Id as being a 'perverts charter'.
I did *not* in my post yesterday opine on what 'trans activists' do or don't want to do. What I said was that the pro trans argument isn't 100% owned by a collection of foaming twitter activists hellbent on trampling all over women's rights. Eg I'm not a trans activist (as if!) but I recognize the strength of the case for self-Id. This doesn't mean I wish to obliterate all reference to sex in the laws of the country or to abolish the whole concept of birth sex in favour of gender. Others may argue for this but that's a matter for them. It certainly doesn't follow automatically from having a less burdensome, de-medicalized gender transition process based predominantly on self-Id.
Yaneer Bar-Yam @yaneerbaryam · Jan 30 Important addition:
Anthony Leonardi @fitterhappierAJ has shown that the immune system T-cells are damaged by covid (shades of HIV), potentially undermining not just Covid immunity but immunity to other diseases, and part of Autoimmune dysfunction after covid.
"Lockdowns, school closures and limiting gatherings only reduced COVID mortality by 0.2% at 'enormous economic and social costs', study finds Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths Economists who carried out review said border closures had virtually zero effect on Covid mortality (-0.1%) However, researchers found closing nonessential shops was most effective intervention, causing 10.6% fall"
Great Barrington Declaration supporter publishes paper in favour of Great Barrington Declaration.....
Surprise!
Shock!
Horror!
If this reply was supposed to convince me of something, it failed.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It has been a clever diversionary tactic for Johnson. We are all (except Leon, who is talking about himself) discussing Starmer/ Savile and not Partygate/ misleading Parliament.
OTOH we're now on what responsibility the Tories themselves had for Saville. Which is, actually, of some relevance to @Cyclefree 's remarks of late.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
Did she really spend NYE with him on 11 consecutive occasions? I mean, I watch Jools Holland every NYE, but them I'm a boring ****.
There's some doubt about this, Savile said he spent 11 consecutive Christmases but those who knew Thatcher said it wasn't likely, a few, but not 11.
I think when one is arguing about how many times Savile was invited round for New Year, the main argument may have been lost.
Indeed
Who the hell sits down IN NUMBER 10 DOWNING STREET and thinks, Hmm, I’m one of the most important people in the world, I can basically invite who I like to Chequers and most will come, so who will I invite around for NYE?
“I know, Jimmy Savile! Wearing those amusing clothes!”
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).
I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
This was covered by Nazir Afzal this morning. Let's hope I get this right, probably not fully, so please correct where I have it wrong.
The police incorrectly told victims and the CPS that there were no other incidents other than theirs and each case was not put together with the others. So on the basis of 1 complaint in each case the CPS decided there wasn't the evidence to prosecute that case. Nasir also covered something regarding the independence of the prosecution, which I didn't really follow, but meant that the Director of the CPS would not be aware of this. He also pointed out that Starmer wasn't at the CPS at this time (rather important) After Starmer was appointed he appointed Nasir to review the problem of child abuse cases not being prosecuted and the prosecution rate significantly improved. So in fact Starmer was not only not responsible for the Saville failures but actually was instrumental in resolving the issues. In addition Nasir made an astounding claim (bearing in mind libel) re Johnson making a previous statement (I assume an article) about child abuse cases and spaffing money up the wall.
Sadly my recollection is not as good as hearing it first hand but it was rather damning.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
BBC - they got criticised for doing it.
Coogan does a fantastic Savile, so should be good.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
Did she really spend NYE with him on 11 consecutive occasions? I mean, I watch Jools Holland every NYE, but them I'm a boring ****.
There's some doubt about this, Savile said he spent 11 consecutive Christmases but those who knew Thatcher said it wasn't likely, a few, but not 11.
I think when one is arguing about how many times Savile was invited round for New Year, the main argument may have been lost.
Indeed
Who the hell sits down IN NUMBER 10 DOWNING STREET and thinks, Hmm, I’m one of the most important people in the world, I can basically invite who I like to Chequers and most will come, so who will I invite around for NYE?
“I know, Jimmy Savile! Wearing those amusing clothes!”
Please do not take the Blessed Margaret's name in vein.
It was a momentary lapse of judgement I suspect, remember he had 19 million viewers at his peak in the 1980s for Jim'll Fix It so she was not alone.
The fact he was invited to Chequers by the 2 most dominant PMs of the last 50 years and was close to Prince Charles and senior figures in the Roman Catholic Church and the police shows he knew how to effectively suck up to the rich and powerful.
BR also used him for many years in an advertising campaign
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
Excellent. Hopefully the screenwriter is up to the task
Coogan is a brilliant choice. Quite an obnoxious man, in some respects (apparently The Trip is basically factual) but he is a genius at inhabiting other personae. I imagine he will do a superbly creepy Savile
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
Isn't BBC?
Produced by ITV Studios but to be shown on the BBC, IIRC.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
I was on the phone earlier speaking to a political friend, I dropped the c-bomb when talking about Boris Johnson and this.
My friend was shocked, as he known me for twenty years and I've only dropped the c-bomb once before.
When talking about Mark Reckless.
As I said earlier today - as it's been allowed it's the sort of thing that tells me Labour should hold a commission on constitutional reform and then build the newly reformed Parliament somewhere else such as Nottingham or (actually scrub Nottingham) - Stoke....
What have the Midlands done to deserve that punishment?!
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
BBC - they got criticised for doing it.
Coogan does a fantastic Savile, so should be good.
Which is remarkable as I would call them crap and utterly worthless.
Seems to be appoint lots of Mayors, without tax raising powers, but in reality then stop the Mayors doing anything they or the local area want by threatening to withdraw central funding.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).
I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
This was covered by Nazir Afzal this morning. Let's hope I get this right, probably not fully, so please correct where I have it wrong.
The police incorrectly told victims and the CPS that there were no other incidents other than theirs and each case was not put together with the others. So on the basis of 1 complaint in each case the CPS decided there wasn't the evidence to prosecute that case. Nasir also covered something regarding the independence of the prosecution, which I didn't really follow, but meant that the Director of the CPS would not be aware of this. He also pointed out that Starmer wasn't at the CPS at this time (rather important) After Starmer was appointed he appointed Nasir to review the problem of child abuse cases not being prosecuted and the prosecution rate significantly improved. So in fact Starmer was not only not responsible for the Saville failures but actually was instrumental in resolving the issues. In addition Nasir made an astounding claim (bearing in mind liable) re Johnson making a previous statement (I assume an article) about child abuse cases and spaffing money up the wall.
Sadly my recollection is not as good as hearing it first hand but it was rather damning.
So Starmer's apology was for stuff that happened before he was DPP? I didn't realise that.
I don't know if records are kept regarding complaints. It's a shame that when others came forward, no one knew that it wasn't the first time an allegation had been made.
EDIT: Wikipedia says:
On 24 October 2012 the Crown Prosecution Service said the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would review the service's decisions not to prosecute Savile in 2009 in relation to four claims against him for sexual abuse dating back to the 1970s.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
Did she really spend NYE with him on 11 consecutive occasions? I mean, I watch Jools Holland every NYE, but them I'm a boring ****.
There's some doubt about this, Savile said he spent 11 consecutive Christmases but those who knew Thatcher said it wasn't likely, a few, but not 11.
I think when one is arguing about how many times Savile was invited round for New Year, the main argument may have been lost.
Indeed
Who the hell sits down IN NUMBER 10 DOWNING STREET and thinks, Hmm, I’m one of the most important people in the world, I can basically invite who I like to Chequers and most will come, so who will I invite around for NYE?
“I know, Jimmy Savile! Wearing those amusing clothes!”
I'd assume everyone coming into the PM's orbit would be vetted to a lesser or greater degree? Either UK intelligence services were crap or Thatch dismissed their concerns cos she liked Jim's line in shell suits and a whiff of cigar smoke.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
Excellent. Hopefully the screenwriter is up to the task
Coogan is a brilliant choice. Quite an obnoxious man, in some respects (apparently The Trip is basically factual) but he is a genius at inhabiting other personae. I imagine he will do a superbly creepy Savile
I always love how he became one of the faces of disgust at the NOTW / phone hacking, when by his own admission he used to phone up his mate at the NOTW asking them to spike all the really bad stories coming out about him....until one day they turned around and said no can do bud, we are going to have to run this one, new editor says we actually have to properly report your shit.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It has been a clever diversionary tactic for Johnson. We are all (except Leon, who is talking about himself) discussing Starmer/ Savile and not Partygate/ misleading Parliament.
I think that may be to the Tory's detriment, however. It is certainly beneficial to SKS and raises his profile, and it gives people a brief respite from bashing away at the PM's lies (which has diminishing returns at a certain point of repetition) - ready to spring back in full force at the next "event".
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
BBC - they got criticised for doing it.
Coogan does a fantastic Savile, so should be good.
It's a horrible idea. 'Hitler the series' ?
Tbf Hitler has popped up in a lot of tv and films over the years.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).
I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
This was covered by Nazir Afzal this morning. Let's hope I get this right, probably not fully, so please correct where I have it wrong.
The police incorrectly told victims and the CPS that there were no other incidents other than theirs and each case was not put together with the others. So on the basis of 1 complaint in each case the CPS decided there wasn't the evidence to prosecute that case. Nasir also covered something regarding the independence of the prosecution, which I didn't really follow, but meant that the Director of the CPS would not be aware of this. He also pointed out that Starmer wasn't at the CPS at this time (rather important) After Starmer was appointed he appointed Nasir to review the problem of child abuse cases not being prosecuted and the prosecution rate significantly improved. So in fact Starmer was not only not responsible for the Saville failures but actually was instrumental in resolving the issues. In addition Nasir made an astounding claim (bearing in mind liable) re Johnson making a previous statement (I assume an article) about child abuse cases and spaffing money up the wall.
Sadly my recollection is not as good as hearing it first hand but it was rather damning.
So Starmer's apology was for stuff that happened before he was DPP? I didn't realise that.
I don't know if records are kept regarding complaints. It's a shame that when others came forward, no one knew that it wasn't the first time an allegation had been made.
AIUI it was analogous to David Cameron apologising for Bloody Sunday.
Didn't happen on his watch but as the incumbent it fell to him to apologise.
"Lockdowns, school closures and limiting gatherings only reduced COVID mortality by 0.2% at 'enormous economic and social costs', study finds Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths Economists who carried out review said border closures had virtually zero effect on Covid mortality (-0.1%) However, researchers found closing nonessential shops was most effective intervention, causing 10.6% fall"
Great Barrington Declaration supporter publishes paper in favour of Great Barrington Declaration.....
Surprise!
Shock!
Horror!
If this reply was supposed to convince me of something, it failed.
From a very brief skim: - The authors seem to argue that if lockdown work then lockdowns should be correlated with fewer deaths. But that's a very simplistic view of causality, that lockdowns are exogenous to the cicumstances and ignores the very strong likelihood that there's causality from high deaths (or at least high cases) leading to lockdowns. Simply - places little affected for other reasons will not have lockdowns and will have few deaths, but that does not show that lockdowns do not work. - The included studies seem to be mostly diff in diff, which is a legitimate method but does require some big assumptions, mainly parallel trends in the absence of an intervention. Again, if one state (for example) locked down and another did not it may be due to having a different, possibly correct, view on what was going to happen next. - Some of the exclusions are 'interesting'
So, some limitations. I'm not saying the study is wrong and I'm not saying that all levels of lockdown are particularly effective - it might be that relatively weak stuff like closing some shops gets 80% of the benefit and the harsher stuff adds little, as the authors suggest.
But I'd wait for more (primary) studies on this and alternative approaches to inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Interrupted time series seems like a reasonable option for primary studies over diff in diff, although even that suffers from the complications of people self-restricting.
For country comparisons, I think the Scandinavian countries are interesting as they have some similarities and the differences in lockdowns were largely down to ideology rather than perceived risk. I'm not saying Sweden were wrong, they just made different choices, but they saw different results in infections and deaths to heir neighbours.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).
I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
This was covered by Nazir Afzal this morning. Let's hope I get this right, probably not fully, so please correct where I have it wrong.
The police incorrectly told victims and the CPS that there were no other incidents other than theirs and each case was not put together with the others. So on the basis of 1 complaint in each case the CPS decided there wasn't the evidence to prosecute that case. Nasir also covered something regarding the independence of the prosecution, which I didn't really follow, but meant that the Director of the CPS would not be aware of this. He also pointed out that Starmer wasn't at the CPS at this time (rather important) After Starmer was appointed he appointed Nasir to review the problem of child abuse cases not being prosecuted and the prosecution rate significantly improved. So in fact Starmer was not only not responsible for the Saville failures but actually was instrumental in resolving the issues. In addition Nasir made an astounding claim (bearing in mind liable) re Johnson making a previous statement (I assume an article) about child abuse cases and spaffing money up the wall.
Sadly my recollection is not as good as hearing it first hand but it was rather damning.
So Starmer's apology was for stuff that happened before he was DPP? I didn't realise that.
I don't know if records are kept regarding complaints. It's a shame that when others came forward, no one knew that it wasn't the first time an allegation had been made.
AIUI it was analogous to David Cameron apologising for Bloody Sunday.
Didn't happen on his watch but as the incumbent it fell to him to apologise.
Tony Blair was for ever apologising for historical stuff.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Savile raised millions for charity, remember. One estimate is 40 million quid. Senior politicians could hardly avoid him, right?
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).
I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
This was covered by Nazir Afzal this morning. Let's hope I get this right, probably not fully, so please correct where I have it wrong.
The police incorrectly told victims and the CPS that there were no other incidents other than theirs and each case was not put together with the others. So on the basis of 1 complaint in each case the CPS decided there wasn't the evidence to prosecute that case. Nasir also covered something regarding the independence of the prosecution, which I didn't really follow, but meant that the Director of the CPS would not be aware of this. He also pointed out that Starmer wasn't at the CPS at this time (rather important) After Starmer was appointed he appointed Nasir to review the problem of child abuse cases not being prosecuted and the prosecution rate significantly improved. So in fact Starmer was not only not responsible for the Saville failures but actually was instrumental in resolving the issues. In addition Nasir made an astounding claim (bearing in mind liable) re Johnson making a previous statement (I assume an article) about child abuse cases and spaffing money up the wall.
Sadly my recollection is not as good as hearing it first hand but it was rather damning.
So Starmer's apology was for stuff that happened before he was DPP? I didn't realise that.
I don't know if records are kept regarding complaints. It's a shame that when others came forward, no one knew that it wasn't the first time an allegation had been made.
AIUI it was analogous to David Cameron apologising for Bloody Sunday.
Didn't happen on his watch but as the incumbent it fell to him to apologise.
Wikipedia says:
On 24 October 2012 the Crown Prosecution Service said the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would review the service's decisions not to prosecute Savile in 2009 in relation to four claims against him for sexual abuse dating back to the 1970s.
I am not suggesting this - but I am surprised that no one has invited the public to stand on their doorsteps at 8-00pm tomorrow and applaud to show their appreciation and thanks to all the Conservative MPs who have submitted a letter to Graham Brady.
Covid infections over 3m again in the last week. Anecdotes are useless in this situation but the number of contributors on here that seem to have it right now is highly consistent with this. As I have said my son has it. He was really quite unwell for the first couple of days, coughing, sick, diarrhea, utterly exhausted, but we see an improvement today. Here's hoping that continues.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Savile raised millions for charity, remember. One estimate is 40 million quid. Senior politicians could hardly avoid him, right?
Apparently even that was built on fraud and deception. It is widely believed now that he probably only ran one or two marathons in total, all the rest he was just driven most of the way.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
BBC - they got criticised for doing it.
Coogan does a fantastic Savile, so should be good.
It's a horrible idea. 'Hitler the series' ?
Absolutely “Hitler the Series”
Don’t you want to know how fantastically evil people function, and sometimes succeed? It seems quite important to me.
I’m surprised nobody has adapted and dramatised Simon Sebag Montefiore’s Young Stalin. It is a superb and compelling narrative about his early days. Also you learn that young Stalin was very good looking with excellent hair
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
BBC - they got criticised for doing it.
Coogan does a fantastic Savile, so should be good.
It's a horrible idea. 'Hitler the series' ?
Tbf Hitler has popped up in a lot of tv and films over the years.
The TV series I want to see made.
Bertrand Dawson, the man who murdered a King, was given a viscountcy by the King's son, and then tried to nobble Stanley Baldwin during the abdication crisis.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).
I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
This was covered by Nazir Afzal this morning. Let's hope I get this right, probably not fully, so please correct where I have it wrong.
The police incorrectly told victims and the CPS that there were no other incidents other than theirs and each case was not put together with the others. So on the basis of 1 complaint in each case the CPS decided there wasn't the evidence to prosecute that case. Nasir also covered something regarding the independence of the prosecution, which I didn't really follow, but meant that the Director of the CPS would not be aware of this. He also pointed out that Starmer wasn't at the CPS at this time (rather important) After Starmer was appointed he appointed Nasir to review the problem of child abuse cases not being prosecuted and the prosecution rate significantly improved. So in fact Starmer was not only not responsible for the Saville failures but actually was instrumental in resolving the issues. In addition Nasir made an astounding claim (bearing in mind libel) re Johnson making a previous statement (I assume an article) about child abuse cases and spaffing money up the wall.
Sadly my recollection is not as good as hearing it first hand but it was rather damning.
The spaffing money quote is from an LBC interview I think. It's for real.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
BBC - they got criticised for doing it.
Coogan does a fantastic Savile, so should be good.
It's a horrible idea. 'Hitler the series' ?
Tbf Hitler has popped up in a lot of tv and films over the years.
Yes, but he really had a huge influence on history. Unavoidable. There's no reason to revisit Saville.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
BBC - they got criticised for doing it.
Coogan does a fantastic Savile, so should be good.
It's a horrible idea. 'Hitler the series' ?
Absolutely “Hitler the Series”
Don’t you want to know how fantastically evil people function, and sometimes succeed? It seems quite important to me.
I’m surprised nobody has adapted and dramatised Simon Sebag Montefiore’s Young Stalin. It is a superb and compelling narrative about his early days. Also you learn that young Stalin was very good looking with excellent hair
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
BBC - they got criticised for doing it.
Coogan does a fantastic Savile, so should be good.
It's a horrible idea. 'Hitler the series' ?
Absolutely “Hitler the Series”
Don’t you want to know how fantastically evil people function, and sometimes succeed? It seems quite important to me.
I’m surprised nobody has adapted and dramatised Simon Sebag Montefiore’s Young Stalin. It is a superb and compelling narrative about his early days. Also you learn that young Stalin was very good looking with excellent hair
There are a million and one tv shows based around what if the Nazi had won etc. But rarely much thought about the evils of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, while we all know what Emily Thornberry thinks....
Johnson's government is veering so far away from conservatism on the one hand and probity on the other that those MPs who want either or both are starting to have little to lose.
Can defections or resignations from the whip be far away?
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
BBC - they got criticised for doing it.
Coogan does a fantastic Savile, so should be good.
It's a horrible idea. 'Hitler the series' ?
Tbf Hitler has popped up in a lot of tv and films over the years.
Yes, but he really had a huge influence on history. Unavoidable. There's no reason to revisit Saville.
How about to highlight the dangers to society of sociopaths who hide behind over the top eccentric personas?
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Louis Theroux made a programme about his earlier Savile documentary. With hindsight it all looks creepier than ever, but what really strikes you is that even Theroux — somebody clever, wilely, and capable of charming almost anyone — was totally under Savile's spell.
Mr. Leon, people are far less keen to make documentaries and dramas about the evils of Soviets, including Stalin, than Nazis.
Probably a combination of the war being Cold, and the alarmingly high number of people who still think the far left is acceptable rather than atrocious.
Covid infections over 3m again in the last week. Anecdotes are useless in this situation but the number of contributors on here that seem to have it right now is highly consistent with this. As I have said my son has it. He was really quite unwell for the first couple of days, coughing, sick, diarrhea, utterly exhausted, but we see an improvement today. Here's hoping that continues.
The reality is Omicron and especially super doper Omicron BA.2, we are all getting exposed and most of us are getting it.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).
I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
This was covered by Nazir Afzal this morning. Let's hope I get this right, probably not fully, so please correct where I have it wrong.
The police incorrectly told victims and the CPS that there were no other incidents other than theirs and each case was not put together with the others. So on the basis of 1 complaint in each case the CPS decided there wasn't the evidence to prosecute that case. Nasir also covered something regarding the independence of the prosecution, which I didn't really follow, but meant that the Director of the CPS would not be aware of this. He also pointed out that Starmer wasn't at the CPS at this time (rather important) After Starmer was appointed he appointed Nasir to review the problem of child abuse cases not being prosecuted and the prosecution rate significantly improved. So in fact Starmer was not only not responsible for the Saville failures but actually was instrumental in resolving the issues. In addition Nasir made an astounding claim (bearing in mind liable) re Johnson making a previous statement (I assume an article) about child abuse cases and spaffing money up the wall.
Sadly my recollection is not as good as hearing it first hand but it was rather damning.
So Starmer's apology was for stuff that happened before he was DPP? I didn't realise that.
I don't know if records are kept regarding complaints. It's a shame that when others came forward, no one knew that it wasn't the first time an allegation had been made.
AIUI it was analogous to David Cameron apologising for Bloody Sunday.
Didn't happen on his watch but as the incumbent it fell to him to apologise.
So on the Gove argument, even if the Tories ditch Johnson, his successor will still be responsible for the lockdown parties?
This Michael Gove speech sounds like a "big government is good" and "government knows best" speech. What do libertarian/free market Conservatives think of it?
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
Did she really spend NYE with him on 11 consecutive occasions? I mean, I watch Jools Holland every NYE, but them I'm a boring ****.
There's some doubt about this, Savile said he spent 11 consecutive Christmases but those who knew Thatcher said it wasn't likely, a few, but not 11.
I think when one is arguing about how many times Savile was invited round for New Year, the main argument may have been lost.
Indeed
Who the hell sits down IN NUMBER 10 DOWNING STREET and thinks, Hmm, I’m one of the most important people in the world, I can basically invite who I like to Chequers and most will come, so who will I invite around for NYE?
“I know, Jimmy Savile! Wearing those amusing clothes!”
I'd assume everyone coming into the PM's orbit would be vetted to a lesser or greater degree? Either UK intelligence services were crap or Thatch dismissed their concerns cos she liked Jim's line in shell suits and a whiff of cigar smoke.
I know you and I share a vivid, glowing admiration for Thatcher, but it has to be admitted this is a bit of a black mark against her
INVITING JIMMY SAVILE TO CHEQUERS
Was he fun? Did he tell great jokes? Did he have brilliant gossip? Did he dance? What? What was the small talk?
It defies explanation. Likewise Blair, the Royals, so many: all apparently hoodwinked
You can see how elite pedo conspiracy theories develop, because at least they explain the otherwise inexplicable social success of Jimmy Savile, MBE
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).
I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
This was covered by Nazir Afzal this morning. Let's hope I get this right, probably not fully, so please correct where I have it wrong.
The police incorrectly told victims and the CPS that there were no other incidents other than theirs and each case was not put together with the others. So on the basis of 1 complaint in each case the CPS decided there wasn't the evidence to prosecute that case. Nasir also covered something regarding the independence of the prosecution, which I didn't really follow, but meant that the Director of the CPS would not be aware of this. He also pointed out that Starmer wasn't at the CPS at this time (rather important) After Starmer was appointed he appointed Nasir to review the problem of child abuse cases not being prosecuted and the prosecution rate significantly improved. So in fact Starmer was not only not responsible for the Saville failures but actually was instrumental in resolving the issues. In addition Nasir made an astounding claim (bearing in mind liable) re Johnson making a previous statement (I assume an article) about child abuse cases and spaffing money up the wall.
Sadly my recollection is not as good as hearing it first hand but it was rather damning.
So Starmer's apology was for stuff that happened before he was DPP? I didn't realise that.
I don't know if records are kept regarding complaints. It's a shame that when others came forward, no one knew that it wasn't the first time an allegation had been made.
EDIT: Wikipedia says:
On 24 October 2012 the Crown Prosecution Service said the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would review the service's decisions not to prosecute Savile in 2009 in relation to four claims against him for sexual abuse dating back to the 1970s.
SKS was DPP in 2009.
Just bear in mind my recollection is from memory of this morning so I might not have it 100%, as he said a lot, but I always think Nazir Afzal is always very impressive, restrained in his comments and was there at the time and has no reason to not tell the truth and his comments this morning were clear and damning (unlike my 2nd hand reporting).
PS I typed that before your edit. Can't answer that point. Might be worth you listening to it. It was on BBC1 TV this morning.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
I was on the phone earlier speaking to a political friend, I dropped the c-bomb when talking about Boris Johnson and this.
My friend was shocked, as he known me for twenty years and I've only dropped the c-bomb once before.
When talking about Mark Reckless.
As I said earlier today - as it's been allowed it's the sort of thing that tells me Labour should hold a commission on constitutional reform and then build the newly reformed Parliament somewhere else such as Nottingham or (actually scrub Nottingham) - Stoke....
What have the Midlands done to deserve that punishment?!
Nothing - it was bit a town that wasn't doing that great as it wasn't London.
Stoke is doing so badly that it just seems the perfect choice if the question was where to put Parliament if it's not in London.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
BBC - they got criticised for doing it.
Coogan does a fantastic Savile, so should be good.
It's a horrible idea. 'Hitler the series' ?
Tbf Hitler has popped up in a lot of tv and films over the years.
Yes, but he really had a huge influence on history. Unavoidable. There's no reason to revisit Saville.
I tend to disagree. The story is not Saville, its the people around him, and why he was able to do what he did. I think that there are still parallels for now too - child abuse is still occuring, both of the mass gang grooming kind, and the creepy family friend kind. Our attitudes and how we deal with this is important, and a sensible reflection on Saville, a primae facie weird human being getting away with unspeakable acts, and never brought to book is timely.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
BBC - they got criticised for doing it.
Coogan does a fantastic Savile, so should be good.
It's a horrible idea. 'Hitler the series' ?
Absolutely “Hitler the Series”
Don’t you want to know how fantastically evil people function, and sometimes succeed? It seems quite important to me.
I’m surprised nobody has adapted and dramatised Simon Sebag Montefiore’s Young Stalin. It is a superb and compelling narrative about his early days. Also you learn that young Stalin was very good looking with excellent hair
I do want to know such things. Do you really believe that a tv series is the best way though? No-one is going to watch if it's correctly portrayed. At least I hope not.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
Did she really spend NYE with him on 11 consecutive occasions? I mean, I watch Jools Holland every NYE, but them I'm a boring ****.
There's some doubt about this, Savile said he spent 11 consecutive Christmases but those who knew Thatcher said it wasn't likely, a few, but not 11.
I think when one is arguing about how many times Savile was invited round for New Year, the main argument may have been lost.
Indeed
Who the hell sits down IN NUMBER 10 DOWNING STREET and thinks, Hmm, I’m one of the most important people in the world, I can basically invite who I like to Chequers and most will come, so who will I invite around for NYE?
“I know, Jimmy Savile! Wearing those amusing clothes!”
Maggie s tastes were not terribly sophisticated, she once said that she was rereading the latest Freddie Forsyth. Now I've read jackal and Odessa more than once but not twice in 3 months, and this was neither of those - it was late, bad Forsyth
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Louis Theroux made a programme about his earlier Savile documentary. With hindsight it all looks creepier than ever, but what really strikes you is that even Theroux — somebody clever, wilely, and capable of charming almost anyone — was totally under Savile's spell.
I recently saw an interview with Theroux and he was in major whatabout-ism mode. Continuing to claim no nobody really knew anything at the BBC, he only asked that question because they thought it was one of those "playground" things and that far far worse than the BBC was his involvement with the NHS.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
In defence of Keir? No. In defence of basic standards of decency in public office? Sure.
Not everyone in the Tory party is HY. Some are moral.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Liz Truss, IIRC, writes of going to dance halls where he was DJ-ing,and how she enjoyed it
Getting the creeps at 12 is a natural defence mechanism. As an adult you don't need that innate suspicion.!
Covid infections over 3m again in the last week. Anecdotes are useless in this situation but the number of contributors on here that seem to have it right now is highly consistent with this. As I have said my son has it. He was really quite unwell for the first couple of days, coughing, sick, diarrhea, utterly exhausted, but we see an improvement today. Here's hoping that continues.
Best of British luck. He’s young, he should be fine. But it is a nasty virus which has not gone away
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
BBC - they got criticised for doing it.
Coogan does a fantastic Savile, so should be good.
It's a horrible idea. 'Hitler the series' ?
Tbf Hitler has popped up in a lot of tv and films over the years.
The TV series I want to see made.
Bertrand Dawson, the man who murdered a King, was given a viscountcy by the King's son, and then tried to nobble Stanley Baldwin during the abdication crisis.
Come on Netflix, sort it out.
Yep, that would make a good drama, ripping into the constructs of class and royalty. Mark Rylance might make a good fist of it.
Poliakoff should be kept a million miles away from it, though that applies to pretty much everything.
This Michael Gove speech sounds like a "big government is good" and "government knows best" speech. What do libertarian/free market Conservatives think of it?
At this time I can no longer support the PM. His actions and mistruths are overshadowing the extraordinary work of so many excellent ministers and colleagues.
Covid infections over 3m again in the last week. Anecdotes are useless in this situation but the number of contributors on here that seem to have it right now is highly consistent with this. As I have said my son has it. He was really quite unwell for the first couple of days, coughing, sick, diarrhea, utterly exhausted, but we see an improvement today. Here's hoping that continues.
The reality is Omicron and especially super doper Omicron BA.2, we are all getting exposed and most of us are getting it.
and for most people it is no worse than a normal cold
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
In defence of Keir? No. In defence of basic standards of decency in public office? Sure.
Not everyone in the Tory party is HY. Some are moral.
Sadly not enough of them within their MPs to write 54 letters.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
BBC - they got criticised for doing it.
Coogan does a fantastic Savile, so should be good.
It's a horrible idea. 'Hitler the series' ?
Tbf Hitler has popped up in a lot of tv and films over the years.
Yes, but he really had a huge influence on history. Unavoidable. There's no reason to revisit Saville.
I tend to disagree. The story is not Saville, its the people around him, and why he was able to do what he did. I think that there are still parallels for now too - child abuse is still occuring, both of the mass gang grooming kind, and the creepy family friend kind. Our attitudes and how we deal with this is important, and a sensible reflection on Saville, a primae facie weird human being getting away with unspeakable acts, and never brought to book is timely.
I know this is 20/20 hindsight - and then some - but if you look closely at that pic of Savile with Thatch, and zero in on his eyes, his eyes actually seem to be saying “Yep, I’m an evil pedo, and I’m getting away with it”
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
In defence of Keir? No. In defence of basic standards of decency in public office? Sure.
Not everyone in the Tory party is HY. Some are moral.
But those people will already have felt lives were crossed I suspect. Why would this be their line?
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.
And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?
So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.
For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
I've posted the report from the relevant House of Commons Committee which after taking evidence from all sides recommends self-Id as the way forward. I've also pointed out that this confirms the conclusions of the UK government when it looked into this previously in 2018. I've further pointed out that several countries have adopted this approach (and have no plans to reverse it) and that Germany is about to. Like it or not these are solid points. I've also sought to explain at length why imo it is illogical (and tbh rather noxious) to present self-Id as being a 'perverts charter'.
I did *not* in my post yesterday opine on what 'trans activists' do or don't want to do. What I said was that the pro trans argument isn't 100% owned by a collection of foaming twitter activists hellbent on trampling all over women's rights. Eg I'm not a trans activist (as if!) but I recognize the strength of the case for self-Id. This doesn't mean I wish to obliterate all reference to sex in the laws of the country or to abolish the whole concept of birth sex in favour of gender. Others may argue for this but that's a matter for them. It certainly doesn't follow automatically from having a less burdensome, de-medicalized gender transition process based predominantly on self-Id.
'Those other people are doing it and recommending it' isn't actually an argument in its favour is it? It's the same argument lemmings use when charging over a cliff. If you agree with it, you can surely find a single convincing argument for it other than pointing at the German Government.
London mayor Sadiq Khan could shut the Tube for days on end and close bridges and tunnels as a black hole in the city's transport budget soars to £1.5bn.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Steve Coogan plays Savile in a new ITV drama I believe
BBC - they got criticised for doing it.
Coogan does a fantastic Savile, so should be good.
It's a horrible idea. 'Hitler the series' ?
Tbf Hitler has popped up in a lot of tv and films over the years.
The TV series I want to see made.
Bertrand Dawson, the man who murdered a King, was given a viscountcy by the King's son, and then tried to nobble Stanley Baldwin during the abdication crisis.
Come on Netflix, sort it out.
Yep, that would make a good drama, ripping into the constructs of class and royalty. Mark Rylance might make a good fist of it.
Poliakoff should be kept a million miles away from it, though that applies to pretty much everything.
Covid infections over 3m again in the last week. Anecdotes are useless in this situation but the number of contributors on here that seem to have it right now is highly consistent with this. As I have said my son has it. He was really quite unwell for the first couple of days, coughing, sick, diarrhea, utterly exhausted, but we see an improvement today. Here's hoping that continues.
The reality is Omicron and especially super doper Omicron BA.2, we are all getting exposed and most of us are getting it.
And all the while the MV bed occupancy falls, and so does the ICU occupancy. This could change, but at the moment cases don't matter. Be honest - if we weren't aware of covid we'd just think that there is a nasty cold going round at the moment.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Louis Theroux made a programme about his earlier Savile documentary. With hindsight it all looks creepier than ever, but what really strikes you is that even Theroux — somebody clever, wilely, and capable of charming almost anyone — was totally under Savile's spell.
The Louis Theroux programme is fascinating, in a strange way.
Mr. Leon, people are far less keen to make documentaries and dramas about the evils of Soviets, including Stalin, than Nazis.
Probably a combination of the war being Cold, and the alarmingly high number of people who still think the far left is acceptable rather than atrocious.
Perhaps WWII-ism applies and people can compute Hitler being the unmistakeable enemy, while Stalin and the Soviet Union being our noble and brave allies as extolled by Churchill makes it a bit trickier.
There are in any case loads of documentaries about Stalin, and the best recent dramas about the dangers of totalitarianism are Chernobyl and Death of Stalin.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Louis Theroux made a programme about his earlier Savile documentary. With hindsight it all looks creepier than ever, but what really strikes you is that even Theroux — somebody clever, wilely, and capable of charming almost anyone — was totally under Savile's spell.
The Louis Theroux programme is fascinating, in a strange way.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
In defence of Keir? No. In defence of basic standards of decency in public office? Sure.
Not everyone in the Tory party is HY. Some are moral.
Sadly not enough of them within their MPs to write 54 letters.
The hotel barman has got so used to me he makes me a special snack of sliced cucumber and raw apple, spiced with pepper, salt and chili
It’s unexpectedly delicious
When you land in blighty you'll feel good though. Home! And back to unimportant.
Are you off your bloody rocker? February? Go back to Britain???
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I’m going back to Colombo, The only reason I’m leaving this sublime place in Galle is because the fricking Sri Lankans are having a national holiday so everywhere in Galle is full
But I have found this new gaff. Looks OK. 5 stars, £90 a night.
Sri Lanka is insanely cheap, as I may have menshed
At this time I can no longer support the PM. His actions and mistruths are overshadowing the extraordinary work of so many excellent ministers and colleagues.
I sense that Ellwood is right: a VONC is inevitable.
If Johnson's stance this week had held up he might have got away with it but it seems that everything he touches turns to sewerage: from the Lynton Crosby fiasco (aka lie) to the Jimmy Savile slur (aka lie) to the latest partygate revelations (many lies) ... etc. etc.
He's clearly unfit for the office of prime minister.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).
I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
This was covered by Nazir Afzal this morning. Let's hope I get this right, probably not fully, so please correct where I have it wrong.
The police incorrectly told victims and the CPS that there were no other incidents other than theirs and each case was not put together with the others. So on the basis of 1 complaint in each case the CPS decided there wasn't the evidence to prosecute that case. Nasir also covered something regarding the independence of the prosecution, which I didn't really follow, but meant that the Director of the CPS would not be aware of this. He also pointed out that Starmer wasn't at the CPS at this time (rather important) After Starmer was appointed he appointed Nasir to review the problem of child abuse cases not being prosecuted and the prosecution rate significantly improved. So in fact Starmer was not only not responsible for the Saville failures but actually was instrumental in resolving the issues. In addition Nasir made an astounding claim (bearing in mind liable) re Johnson making a previous statement (I assume an article) about child abuse cases and spaffing money up the wall.
Sadly my recollection is not as good as hearing it first hand but it was rather damning.
So Starmer's apology was for stuff that happened before he was DPP? I didn't realise that.
I don't know if records are kept regarding complaints. It's a shame that when others came forward, no one knew that it wasn't the first time an allegation had been made.
EDIT: Wikipedia says:
On 24 October 2012 the Crown Prosecution Service said the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would review the service's decisions not to prosecute Savile in 2009 in relation to four claims against him for sexual abuse dating back to the 1970s.
SKS was DPP in 2009.
Just bear in mind my recollection is from memory of this morning so I might not have it 100%, as he said a lot, but I always think Nazir Afzal is always very impressive, restrained in his comments and was there at the time and has no reason to not tell the truth and his comments this morning were clear and damning (unlike my 2nd hand reporting).
PS I typed that before your edit. Can't answer that point. Might be worth you listening to it. It was on BBC1 TV this morning.
A couple of points:
1. The records at the DPP on the Saville case have apparently been shredded so we won’t have proof one way or the other what was known;
2. I like Nazir Afzal a lot BUT she did play a big role in the shift of policy at the CPS to believe all victims, which is the real problem with what Starmer did and which led to the Carl Beech fiasco. Afzal therefore does have a vested interest in what’s happening at the moment, especially as I think Number 10’s real strategy here is to get people focusing on Starmer’s judgement.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Louis Theroux made a programme about his earlier Savile documentary. With hindsight it all looks creepier than ever, but what really strikes you is that even Theroux — somebody clever, wilely, and capable of charming almost anyone — was totally under Savile's spell.
The Louis Theroux programme is fascinating, in a strange way.
I remember when it was first broadcast thinking, at the time, that Theroux looked frightened and intimidated in a couple of scenes.
Look, there’s my weird bar snack on the left. Cheers
Stuff like this makes me appreciate the miracle of the internet. 200 years ago if I wanted to tell you all about the snack I was having I would have had to write you all individual letters with a goose quill, describing my snack with words, then put the sealed letters on a tea clipper bound for England and you’d only have learned about my snack maybe a year later as the letters slowly made their way across the island of Britain in carriages to your various hovels and mansions. Now I can just do this:
This is what the internet was FOR, all along
My office today is the 10am London to Aberdeen train, where two sets of train crew are keeping me plied with drinks and food. Have read loads of negatives about these new trains but they're a very comfy place to while away the hours in first class.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).
I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
This was covered by Nazir Afzal this morning. Let's hope I get this right, probably not fully, so please correct where I have it wrong.
The police incorrectly told victims and the CPS that there were no other incidents other than theirs and each case was not put together with the others. So on the basis of 1 complaint in each case the CPS decided there wasn't the evidence to prosecute that case. Nasir also covered something regarding the independence of the prosecution, which I didn't really follow, but meant that the Director of the CPS would not be aware of this. He also pointed out that Starmer wasn't at the CPS at this time (rather important) After Starmer was appointed he appointed Nasir to review the problem of child abuse cases not being prosecuted and the prosecution rate significantly improved. So in fact Starmer was not only not responsible for the Saville failures but actually was instrumental in resolving the issues. In addition Nasir made an astounding claim (bearing in mind liable) re Johnson making a previous statement (I assume an article) about child abuse cases and spaffing money up the wall.
Sadly my recollection is not as good as hearing it first hand but it was rather damning.
So Starmer's apology was for stuff that happened before he was DPP? I didn't realise that.
I don't know if records are kept regarding complaints. It's a shame that when others came forward, no one knew that it wasn't the first time an allegation had been made.
AIUI it was analogous to David Cameron apologising for Bloody Sunday.
Didn't happen on his watch but as the incumbent it fell to him to apologise.
Wikipedia says:
On 24 October 2012 the Crown Prosecution Service said the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would review the service's decisions not to prosecute Savile in 2009 in relation to four claims against him for sexual abuse dating back to the 1970s.
SKS was DPP in 2009.
We do have a bit of a conflict there don't we? I don't want to slag off Wikipedia as, as far as I am concerned, it is God. I can only assume there is some other explanation relating to an earlier date.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.
And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?
So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.
For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
I've posted the report from the relevant House of Commons Committee which after taking evidence from all sides recommends self-Id as the way forward. I've also pointed out that this confirms the conclusions of the UK government when it looked into this previously in 2018. I've further pointed out that several countries have adopted this approach (and have no plans to reverse it) and that Germany is about to. Like it or not these are solid points. I've also sought to explain at length why imo it is illogical (and tbh rather noxious) to present self-Id as being a 'perverts charter'.
I did *not* in my post yesterday opine on what 'trans activists' do or don't want to do. What I said was that the pro trans argument isn't 100% owned by a collection of foaming twitter activists hellbent on trampling all over women's rights. Eg I'm not a trans activist (as if!) but I recognize the strength of the case for self-Id. This doesn't mean I wish to obliterate all reference to sex in the laws of the country or to abolish the whole concept of birth sex in favour of gender. Others may argue for this but that's a matter for them. It certainly doesn't follow automatically from having a less burdensome, de-medicalized gender transition process based predominantly on self-Id.
'Those other people are doing it and recommending it' isn't actually an argument in its favour is it? It's the same argument lemmings use when charging over a cliff. If you agree with it, you can surely find a single convincing argument for it other than pointing at the German Government.
My one and only trans friend - but one of my oldest friends, who went from he to she about 25 years ago - thinks Self ID is a truly terrible idea, and the horrible aggression of the extreme trans activists is a nightmare for the cause
She had to live two years as a woman, have the operation, the works, before she could live as a woman freely and entirely. She sees no reason for this to be changed
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).
I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
This was covered by Nazir Afzal this morning. Let's hope I get this right, probably not fully, so please correct where I have it wrong.
The police incorrectly told victims and the CPS that there were no other incidents other than theirs and each case was not put together with the others. So on the basis of 1 complaint in each case the CPS decided there wasn't the evidence to prosecute that case. Nasir also covered something regarding the independence of the prosecution, which I didn't really follow, but meant that the Director of the CPS would not be aware of this. He also pointed out that Starmer wasn't at the CPS at this time (rather important) After Starmer was appointed he appointed Nasir to review the problem of child abuse cases not being prosecuted and the prosecution rate significantly improved. So in fact Starmer was not only not responsible for the Saville failures but actually was instrumental in resolving the issues. In addition Nasir made an astounding claim (bearing in mind liable) re Johnson making a previous statement (I assume an article) about child abuse cases and spaffing money up the wall.
Sadly my recollection is not as good as hearing it first hand but it was rather damning.
So Starmer's apology was for stuff that happened before he was DPP? I didn't realise that.
I don't know if records are kept regarding complaints. It's a shame that when others came forward, no one knew that it wasn't the first time an allegation had been made.
EDIT: Wikipedia says:
On 24 October 2012 the Crown Prosecution Service said the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would review the service's decisions not to prosecute Savile in 2009 in relation to four claims against him for sexual abuse dating back to the 1970s.
SKS was DPP in 2009.
Just bear in mind my recollection is from memory of this morning so I might not have it 100%, as he said a lot, but I always think Nazir Afzal is always very impressive, restrained in his comments and was there at the time and has no reason to not tell the truth and his comments this morning were clear and damning (unlike my 2nd hand reporting).
PS I typed that before your edit. Can't answer that point. Might be worth you listening to it. It was on BBC1 TV this morning.
A couple of points:
1. The records at the DPP on the Saville case have apparently been shredded so we won’t have proof one way or the other what was known;
2. I like Nazir Afzal a lot BUT she* did play a big role in the shift of policy at the CPS to believe all victims, which is the real problem with what Starmer did and which led to the Carl Beech fiasco. Afzal therefore does have a vested interest in what’s happening at the moment, especially as I think Number 10’s real strategy here is to get people focusing on Starmer’s judgement.
Talk among MPs of another no confidence letter going in at 5pm
PM’s refusal to withdraw the Jimmy Savile comment apparently the trigger
If that's true, it's looking like a coordinated plan. Interesting that our very own Aaron immediately retweeted Anthony Mangnall's tweet and praised him.
Look, there’s my weird bar snack on the left. Cheers
Stuff like this makes me appreciate the miracle of the internet. 200 years ago if I wanted to tell you all about the snack I was having I would have had to write you all individual letters with a goose quill, describing my snack with words, then put the sealed letters on a tea clipper bound for England and you’d only have learned about my snack maybe a year later as the letters slowly made their way across the island of Britain in carriages to your various hovels and mansions. Now I can just do this:
This is what the internet was FOR, all along
My office today is the 10am London to Aberdeen train, where two sets of train crew are keeping me plied with drinks and food. Have read loads of negatives about these new trains but they're a very comfy place to while away the hours in first class.
Look, there’s my weird bar snack on the left. Cheers
Stuff like this makes me appreciate the miracle of the internet. 200 years ago if I wanted to tell you all about the snack I was having I would have had to write you all individual letters with a goose quill, describing my snack with words, then put the sealed letters on a tea clipper bound for England and you’d only have learned about my snack maybe a year later as the letters slowly made their way across the island of Britain in carriages to your various hovels and mansions. Now I can just do this:
This is what the internet was FOR, all along
My office today is the 10am London to Aberdeen train, where two sets of train crew are keeping me plied with drinks and food. Have read loads of negatives about these new trains but they're a very comfy place to while away the hours in first class.
First class isn't a problem, peasant (second) class is - the seats are just that bit more crammed.
Also don't the crew also change at Edinburgh as well as Newcastle?
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).
I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
This was covered by Nazir Afzal this morning. Let's hope I get this right, probably not fully, so please correct where I have it wrong.
The police incorrectly told victims and the CPS that there were no other incidents other than theirs and each case was not put together with the others. So on the basis of 1 complaint in each case the CPS decided there wasn't the evidence to prosecute that case. Nasir also covered something regarding the independence of the prosecution, which I didn't really follow, but meant that the Director of the CPS would not be aware of this. He also pointed out that Starmer wasn't at the CPS at this time (rather important) After Starmer was appointed he appointed Nasir to review the problem of child abuse cases not being prosecuted and the prosecution rate significantly improved. So in fact Starmer was not only not responsible for the Saville failures but actually was instrumental in resolving the issues. In addition Nasir made an astounding claim (bearing in mind liable) re Johnson making a previous statement (I assume an article) about child abuse cases and spaffing money up the wall.
Sadly my recollection is not as good as hearing it first hand but it was rather damning.
So Starmer's apology was for stuff that happened before he was DPP? I didn't realise that.
I don't know if records are kept regarding complaints. It's a shame that when others came forward, no one knew that it wasn't the first time an allegation had been made.
AIUI it was analogous to David Cameron apologising for Bloody Sunday.
Didn't happen on his watch but as the incumbent it fell to him to apologise.
Wikipedia says:
On 24 October 2012 the Crown Prosecution Service said the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would review the service's decisions not to prosecute Savile in 2009 in relation to four claims against him for sexual abuse dating back to the 1970s.
SKS was DPP in 2009.
We do have a bit of a conflict there don't we? I don't want to slag off Wikipedia as, as far as I am concerned, it is God. I can only assume there is some other explanation relating to an earlier date.
I wonder why this has leaked today. Priti on manoeuvres?
The BBC reporting that last year No.10 overruled the Home Secretary to keep the Met Commissioner in her job. One for historians of Johnson's fall to ponder.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).
I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
This was covered by Nazir Afzal this morning. Let's hope I get this right, probably not fully, so please correct where I have it wrong.
The police incorrectly told victims and the CPS that there were no other incidents other than theirs and each case was not put together with the others. So on the basis of 1 complaint in each case the CPS decided there wasn't the evidence to prosecute that case. Nasir also covered something regarding the independence of the prosecution, which I didn't really follow, but meant that the Director of the CPS would not be aware of this. He also pointed out that Starmer wasn't at the CPS at this time (rather important) After Starmer was appointed he appointed Nasir to review the problem of child abuse cases not being prosecuted and the prosecution rate significantly improved. So in fact Starmer was not only not responsible for the Saville failures but actually was instrumental in resolving the issues. In addition Nasir made an astounding claim (bearing in mind liable) re Johnson making a previous statement (I assume an article) about child abuse cases and spaffing money up the wall.
Sadly my recollection is not as good as hearing it first hand but it was rather damning.
So Starmer's apology was for stuff that happened before he was DPP? I didn't realise that.
I don't know if records are kept regarding complaints. It's a shame that when others came forward, no one knew that it wasn't the first time an allegation had been made.
AIUI it was analogous to David Cameron apologising for Bloody Sunday.
Didn't happen on his watch but as the incumbent it fell to him to apologise.
Wikipedia says:
On 24 October 2012 the Crown Prosecution Service said the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would review the service's decisions not to prosecute Savile in 2009 in relation to four claims against him for sexual abuse dating back to the 1970s.
SKS was DPP in 2009.
We do have a bit of a conflict there don't we? I don't want to slag off Wikipedia as, as far as I am concerned, it is God. I can only assume there is some other explanation relating to an earlier date.
Why is Wikipedia God to you? I find it concerning that we used to rely on a variety of different encylopaedias and reference books until fairly recently, and now most people rely on just one. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
Talk among MPs of another no confidence letter going in at 5pm
PM’s refusal to withdraw the Jimmy Savile comment apparently the trigger
If that's true, it's looking like a coordinated plan. Interesting that our very own Aaron immediately retweeted Anthony Mangnall's tweet and praised him.
Perhaps they hope that a slow trickle combined with a visit from the men in grey will result in a resignation before 54 is reached?
Talk among MPs of another no confidence letter going in at 5pm
PM’s refusal to withdraw the Jimmy Savile comment apparently the trigger
If that's true, it's looking like a coordinated plan. Interesting that our very own Aaron immediately retweeted Anthony Mangnall's tweet and praised him.
Yep, it is looking pretty coordinated to me. I hope all those posters saying "he is going nowhere" will be willing to wear hair shirts for a month if he does.
I was thinking about HY asking me to respond this morning and I just don't have the time or inclination to enter into a back and forth with someone who is like a JW.
However, for the wider community I think 1990 is an interesting comparison. After 3 stunning General Election victories, Margaret Thatcher had become toxic. The poll tax was the final straw. Labour were getting regular double-digit opinion poll leads.
So the Conservative MPs did (well sort of did) what they needed to in order to save the party. They ditched Maggie. This still sticks in the throat of some diehards who didn't get it, and couldn't see what was coming.
The result? John Major pulled off an unexpected victory in 1992.
We tend to judge Major by what happened next, but without the ERM fiasco of Black Wednesday it's possible he might have retrieved things.
Is 2022 like 1990? Yes and no. Boris Johnson is more toxic now than even Margaret Thatcher, for the reason that he has alienated everybody across all parts of his party and beyond. This isn't one clique. He has upset everyone. And he is no Margaret Thatcher. She had her faults, by heck, but she was a straight no nonsense person and a great PM.
By the same token Sir Keir Starmer is no Neil Kinnock. He's a bit dour and drab but let's just say that SKS would never do a Sheffield Rally.
My point is this. If the tories ditch Johnson now I think they stand a chance in 2024. If they don't, they're out for a generation.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).
I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
This was covered by Nazir Afzal this morning. Let's hope I get this right, probably not fully, so please correct where I have it wrong.
The police incorrectly told victims and the CPS that there were no other incidents other than theirs and each case was not put together with the others. So on the basis of 1 complaint in each case the CPS decided there wasn't the evidence to prosecute that case. Nasir also covered something regarding the independence of the prosecution, which I didn't really follow, but meant that the Director of the CPS would not be aware of this. He also pointed out that Starmer wasn't at the CPS at this time (rather important) After Starmer was appointed he appointed Nasir to review the problem of child abuse cases not being prosecuted and the prosecution rate significantly improved. So in fact Starmer was not only not responsible for the Saville failures but actually was instrumental in resolving the issues. In addition Nasir made an astounding claim (bearing in mind liable) re Johnson making a previous statement (I assume an article) about child abuse cases and spaffing money up the wall.
Sadly my recollection is not as good as hearing it first hand but it was rather damning.
So Starmer's apology was for stuff that happened before he was DPP? I didn't realise that.
I don't know if records are kept regarding complaints. It's a shame that when others came forward, no one knew that it wasn't the first time an allegation had been made.
AIUI it was analogous to David Cameron apologising for Bloody Sunday.
Didn't happen on his watch but as the incumbent it fell to him to apologise.
Wikipedia says:
On 24 October 2012 the Crown Prosecution Service said the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would review the service's decisions not to prosecute Savile in 2009 in relation to four claims against him for sexual abuse dating back to the 1970s.
SKS was DPP in 2009.
We do have a bit of a conflict there don't we? I don't want to slag off Wikipedia as, as far as I am concerned, it is God. I can only assume there is some other explanation relating to an earlier date.
I don't have a Telegraph account, so can't read it.
4 paragraphs (pushing things a lot but it's a 2012 article so meh)
In a statement released today, Keir Starmer QC said: “In light of the numerous allegations made about Jimmy Savile recently, last week I asked the Chief Crown Prosecutor for the South East, Roger Coe-Salazar, to read and consider the files in relation to the four incidents referred to us.
"He has done so and he has assured me that the decisions taken at the time were the right decisions based on the information and evidence then available.
“Out of an abundance of caution I have asked for the papers in the four cases to be provided to my Principal Legal Advisor, Alison Levitt QC, forthwith so that she can consider the decisions made and advise me accordingly.
“This is not a straightforward issue but I have said to the Attorney General that I would like to discuss with him whether the CPS should adopt a policy of referring cases to other relevant agencies, such as social services, where an allegation is made but cannot be proceeded with for evidential reasons.”
This is an interesting article on Starmer / Savile claims. Yes I know its Tory Home so is obviously biased, but actually it defends Starmer on the main point (based on the facts), but makes some observations along the lines of one I made down thread.
Talk among MPs of another no confidence letter going in at 5pm
PM’s refusal to withdraw the Jimmy Savile comment apparently the trigger
If that's true, it's looking like a coordinated plan. Interesting that our very own Aaron immediately retweeted Anthony Mangnall's tweet and praised him.
Perhaps they hope that a slow trickle combined with a visit from the men in grey will result in a resignation before 54 is reached?
They may hope that. I'm hoping for a threesome with the Minogue sisters.
Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen
The Times @thetimes Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
Actually I believe it.
In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.
I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.
Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"
It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….
WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
Never met SirJammy, but was introduced to Sir Cyril Smith as a small boy. I remember a terrifying monster of a man and that was both of us fully clothed on Rochdale market. What went on - and the cover up - is a disgrace.
Comments
I did *not* in my post yesterday opine on what 'trans activists' do or don't want to do. What I said was that the pro trans argument isn't 100% owned by a collection of foaming twitter activists hellbent on trampling all over women's rights. Eg I'm not a trans activist (as if!) but I recognize the strength of the case for self-Id. This doesn't mean I wish to obliterate all reference to sex in the laws of the country or to abolish the whole concept of birth sex in favour of gender. Others may argue for this but that's a matter for them. It certainly doesn't follow automatically from having a less burdensome, de-medicalized gender transition process based predominantly on self-Id.
Yaneer Bar-Yam
@yaneerbaryam
·
Jan 30
Important addition:
Anthony Leonardi
@fitterhappierAJ
has shown that the immune system T-cells are damaged by covid (shades of HIV), potentially undermining not just Covid immunity but immunity to other diseases, and part of Autoimmune dysfunction after covid.
12/
Anthony Leonardi credentials
Anthony J Leonardi, PhD, MS
@fitterhappierAJ
T-Cell Immunologist (PhD)
BS MS MPH(ing)
@JohnsHopkins
PhD
@theNCI
/
@KingstonUni
Who the hell sits down IN NUMBER 10 DOWNING STREET and thinks, Hmm, I’m one of the most important people in the world, I can basically invite who I like to Chequers and most will come, so who will I invite around for NYE?
“I know, Jimmy Savile! Wearing those amusing clothes!”
The police incorrectly told victims and the CPS that there were no other incidents other than theirs and each case was not put together with the others. So on the basis of 1 complaint in each case the CPS decided there wasn't the evidence to prosecute that case. Nasir also covered something regarding the independence of the prosecution, which I didn't really follow, but meant that the Director of the CPS would not be aware of this. He also pointed out that Starmer wasn't at the CPS at this time (rather important) After Starmer was appointed he appointed Nasir to review the problem of child abuse cases not being prosecuted and the prosecution rate significantly improved. So in fact Starmer was not only not responsible for the Saville failures but actually was instrumental in resolving the issues. In addition Nasir made an astounding claim (bearing in mind libel) re Johnson making a previous statement (I assume an article) about child abuse cases and spaffing money up the wall.
Sadly my recollection is not as good as hearing it first hand but it was rather damning.
Coogan does a fantastic Savile, so should be good.
It was a momentary lapse of judgement I suspect, remember he had 19 million viewers at his peak in the 1980s for Jim'll Fix It so she was not alone.
The fact he was invited to Chequers by the 2 most dominant PMs of the last 50 years and was close to Prince Charles and senior figures in the Roman Catholic Church and the police shows he knew how to effectively suck up to the rich and powerful.
BR also used him for many years in an advertising campaign
Coogan is a brilliant choice. Quite an obnoxious man, in some respects (apparently The Trip is basically factual) but he is a genius at inhabiting other personae. I imagine he will do a superbly creepy Savile
I don't know if records are kept regarding complaints. It's a shame that when others came forward, no one knew that it wasn't the first time an allegation had been made.
EDIT: Wikipedia says:
On 24 October 2012 the Crown Prosecution Service said the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would review the service's decisions not to prosecute Savile in 2009 in relation to four claims against him for sexual abuse dating back to the 1970s.
SKS was DPP in 2009.
Didn't happen on his watch but as the incumbent it fell to him to apologise.
- The authors seem to argue that if lockdown work then lockdowns should be correlated with fewer deaths. But that's a very simplistic view of causality, that lockdowns are exogenous to the cicumstances and ignores the very strong likelihood that there's causality from high deaths (or at least high cases) leading to lockdowns. Simply - places little affected for other reasons will not have lockdowns and will have few deaths, but that does not show that lockdowns do not work.
- The included studies seem to be mostly diff in diff, which is a legitimate method but does require some big assumptions, mainly parallel trends in the absence of an intervention. Again, if one state (for example) locked down and another did not it may be due to having a different, possibly correct, view on what was going to happen next.
- Some of the exclusions are 'interesting'
So, some limitations. I'm not saying the study is wrong and I'm not saying that all levels of lockdown are particularly effective - it might be that relatively weak stuff like closing some shops gets 80% of the benefit and the harsher stuff adds little, as the authors suggest.
But I'd wait for more (primary) studies on this and alternative approaches to inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Interrupted time series seems like a reasonable option for primary studies over diff in diff, although even that suffers from the complications of people self-restricting.
For country comparisons, I think the Scandinavian countries are interesting as they have some similarities and the differences in lockdowns were largely down to ideology rather than perceived risk. I'm not saying Sweden were wrong, they just made different choices, but they saw different results in infections and deaths to heir neighbours.
On 24 October 2012 the Crown Prosecution Service said the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would review the service's decisions not to prosecute Savile in 2009 in relation to four claims against him for sexual abuse dating back to the 1970s.
SKS was DPP in 2009.
Don’t you want to know how fantastically evil people function, and sometimes succeed? It seems quite important to me.
I’m surprised nobody has adapted and dramatised Simon Sebag Montefiore’s Young Stalin. It is a superb and compelling narrative about his early days. Also you learn that young Stalin was very good looking with excellent hair
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Young-Stalin-Simon-Sebag-Montefiore/dp/0753823799
Bertrand Dawson, the man who murdered a King, was given a viscountcy by the King's son, and then tried to nobble Stanley Baldwin during the abdication crisis.
Come on Netflix, sort it out.
"But look! We made a documentary about him!"
Can defections or resignations from the whip be far away?
Probably a combination of the war being Cold, and the alarmingly high number of people who still think the far left is acceptable rather than atrocious.
INVITING JIMMY SAVILE TO CHEQUERS
Was he fun? Did he tell great jokes? Did he have brilliant gossip? Did he dance? What? What was the small talk?
It defies explanation. Likewise Blair, the Royals, so many: all apparently hoodwinked
You can see how elite pedo conspiracy theories develop, because at least they explain the otherwise inexplicable social success of Jimmy Savile, MBE
PS I typed that before your edit. Can't answer that point. Might be worth you listening to it. It was on BBC1 TV this morning.
Stoke is doing so badly that it just seems the perfect choice if the question was where to put Parliament if it's not in London.
There are film portrayals which do well.
I lost a lot of respect after hearing that take.
Not everyone in the Tory party is HY. Some are moral.
Getting the creeps at 12 is a natural defence mechanism. As an adult you don't need that innate suspicion.!
Poliakoff should be kept a million miles away from it, though that applies to pretty much everything.
.https://twitter.com/AnthonyMangnal1/status/1488887664493445125?s=20&t=6MBxJxIhktjd6Kbof5JKlA
Anthony Mangnall MP
Standards in public life matter.
At this time I can no longer support the PM. His actions and mistruths are overshadowing the extraordinary work of so many excellent ministers and colleagues.
I have submitted a letter of no confidence.
https://twitter.com/AnthonyMangnal1/status/1488887664493445125
https://metro.co.uk/2022/02/02/london-tube-lines-could-be-shut-for-days-as-tfl-black-hole-soars-to-1500000000-16032468/
https://twitter.com/AnthonyMangnal1/status/1488887664493445125
I suspect this Boris Johnson market is either out of date or wrong, but we shall see
There are in any case loads of documentaries about Stalin, and the best recent dramas about the dangers of totalitarianism are Chernobyl and Death of Stalin.
If Johnson's stance this week had held up he might have got away with it but it seems that everything he touches turns to sewerage: from the Lynton Crosby fiasco (aka lie) to the Jimmy Savile slur (aka lie) to the latest partygate revelations (many lies) ... etc. etc.
He's clearly unfit for the office of prime minister.
1. The records at the DPP on the Saville case have apparently been shredded so we won’t have proof one way or the other what was known;
2. I like Nazir Afzal a lot BUT she did play a big role in the shift of policy at the CPS to believe all victims, which is the real problem with what Starmer did and which led to the Carl Beech fiasco. Afzal therefore does have a vested interest in what’s happening at the moment, especially as I think Number 10’s real strategy here is to get people focusing on Starmer’s judgement.
She had to live two years as a woman, have the operation, the works, before she could live as a woman freely and entirely. She sees no reason for this to be changed
Her opinion is good enough for me
However, if you look at the balance there's clearly tons more on Nazis/Hitler than Soviets/Stalin.
Agree entirely on the WWII ally aspect.
Edited extra bit: anyway, I must be off.
Talk among MPs of another no confidence letter going in at 5pm
PM’s refusal to withdraw the Jimmy Savile comment apparently the trigger
If that's true, it's looking like a coordinated plan. Interesting that our very own Aaron immediately retweeted Anthony Mangnall's tweet and praised him.
Also don't the crew also change at Edinburgh as well as Newcastle?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9630550/Jimmy-Savile-What-George-Entwistle-told-MPs-about-Panorama-justthewomen-Newsnight-and-the-conversation-at-the-Hilton-Hotel.html
I don't have a Telegraph account, so can't read it.
The BBC reporting that last year No.10 overruled the Home Secretary to keep the Met Commissioner in her job. One for historians of Johnson's fall to ponder.
https://twitter.com/arthistorynews/status/1488870878943354881
However, for the wider community I think 1990 is an interesting comparison. After 3 stunning General Election victories, Margaret Thatcher had become toxic. The poll tax was the final straw. Labour were getting regular double-digit opinion poll leads.
So the Conservative MPs did (well sort of did) what they needed to in order to save the party. They ditched Maggie. This still sticks in the throat of some diehards who didn't get it, and couldn't see what was coming.
The result? John Major pulled off an unexpected victory in 1992.
We tend to judge Major by what happened next, but without the ERM fiasco of Black Wednesday it's possible he might have retrieved things.
Is 2022 like 1990? Yes and no. Boris Johnson is more toxic now than even Margaret Thatcher, for the reason that he has alienated everybody across all parts of his party and beyond. This isn't one clique. He has upset everyone. And he is no Margaret Thatcher. She had her faults, by heck, but she was a straight no nonsense person and a great PM.
By the same token Sir Keir Starmer is no Neil Kinnock. He's a bit dour and drab but let's just say that SKS would never do a Sheffield Rally.
My point is this. If the tories ditch Johnson now I think they stand a chance in 2024. If they don't, they're out for a generation.
In a statement released today, Keir Starmer QC said: “In light of the numerous allegations made about Jimmy Savile recently, last week I asked the Chief Crown Prosecutor for the South East, Roger Coe-Salazar, to read and consider the files in relation to the four incidents referred to us.
"He has done so and he has assured me that the decisions taken at the time were the right decisions based on the information and evidence then available.
“Out of an abundance of caution I have asked for the papers in the four cases to be provided to my Principal Legal Advisor, Alison Levitt QC, forthwith so that she can consider the decisions made and advise me accordingly.
“This is not a straightforward issue but I have said to the Attorney General that I would like to discuss with him whether the CPS should adopt a policy of referring cases to other relevant agencies, such as social services, where an allegation is made but cannot be proceeded with for evidential reasons.”
I will also once again point out https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome
If a website is stupid enough to use Javascript as their paywall I see no harm in using more Javascript to bypass said "paywall".
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2022/02/starmer-and-savile-this-failure-occured-on-his-watch-and-was-therefore-ultimately-his-responsibility.html
I'm hoping for a threesome with the Minogue sisters.
What is it about monsters being knighted...?