O/T but I’ve been a bit gobsmacked this morning listening to the Today programme’s reporting and commentary on BP’s results this morning. They keep banging on about how BP and Shell’s profits could cover the whole of the UK’s energy bills and about a windfall tax.
Not once have they had the wit to say “this is great news for UK pensions as they will comprise a large portion of pension assets”.
There has been a small nod to Sunak being reluctant to make a windfall tax as it deters investment but it’s as if the editorial line is BP evil and they should give the money away.
Just luckily had someone on making the pensions point but the language and tone is very unbalanced from the presenters.
Now Ed Davey saying it’s “unfair”. FFS…..
When they were losing $20bn a year, as they were only a year ago, should the government have handed their shareholders a massive windfall to make up for it?
Of course not, so why should they be taxed on profits now?
If we need to reduce the price of oil and gas, then get fracking and stop relying on Putin for supplies.
Indeed. Ed Davey was asked how to tax profits made all over the world and he said that most of the profits were from the North Sea operations so we are already able to tax them.
I waited for the question to him “so actually if these massive profits are happening then we will automatically be getting a “windfall tax” on the increase on top of the uplift to pensions and BP having more money to invest in green energy development”.
Mr. Unpopular, the apology did, however, have to be dragged out of her. She initially refused to apologise.
True, but then if there is an apology forthcoming from BJ, it will be at least just as torturous. As Foxy mentions, it's also a bit different to call Tories scum to a gathering of activists than to defame (but for Parliamentary Privilege) from the dispatch box. I don't want to excuse Rayner, because I thought her comments were also disgraceful but she did apologise and appears to understand why her comments were wrong. Not sure the PM will be as gracious.
I think people are missing the point this morning. It's not that the crazy extremists heard what Boris was saying, then decided to copy him. It's that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom heard what the crazy extremists were saying, and decided to copy them. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1490967055079964673
O/T but I’ve been a bit gobsmacked this morning listening to the Today programme’s reporting and commentary on BP’s results this morning. They keep banging on about how BP and Shell’s profits could cover the whole of the UK’s energy bills and about a windfall tax.
Not once have they had the wit to say “this is great news for UK pensions as they will comprise a large portion of pension assets”.
There has been a small nod to Sunak being reluctant to make a windfall tax as it deters investment but it’s as if the editorial line is BP evil and they should give the money away.
Just luckily had someone on making the pensions point but the language and tone is very unbalanced from the presenters.
Now Ed Davey saying it’s “unfair”. FFS…..
Of course one of the reasons that their taxable profits are so high is that they have been cutting back on capital investment since the political class seems to think that we should be doing without oil in the future. In the UK the government fast tracked licences for 6 minor fields yesterday with Kwasi allegedly under pressure from Sunak to get them through but the Cambo field seems stuck in a political quagmire.
Arch-loyalists set to reap rewards in reshuffle to shore up Johnson
Boris Johnson will carry out a minireshuffle as soon as today, with his chief whip potentially replacing Jacob Rees-Mogg as leader of the House of Commons.
Mark Spencer, who has been Johnson’s chief whip since he became prime minister in 2019, is in line for a sideways move after his role enforcing Conservative discipline was in effect superseded in recent weeks by a tight-knit group of longstanding Johnson loyalists.
Chris Pincher, the housing minister, who has been leading Johnson’s “shadow” whipping operation, is frontrunner to succeed Spencer, but other possibilities include Nigel Adams, a Cabinet Office minister and former whip, and Chris Heaton-Harris, minister for Europe at the Foreign Office and Tory chief whip in the European parliament.
Spencer, who has been a whip for almost six years, was said last night to be in line to replace Rees-Mogg as leader of the Commons. Rees-Mogg, a passionate defender of the prime minister, especially over the Downing Street parties saga, would be “looked after” with a seat of equivalent rank at the cabinet table, a senior source said.
Fuck me, I had low expectations for a Boris Johnson premiership, but he sinks so much lower than I thought was possible.
We need to be rid of Britain Trump.
Anyone who enables him will be spoken by history with all the warmth of the Vichy collaborators.
Incidentally, why is the phrase Britain Trump? Shouldn’t it be Britain’s Trump, or the British Trump?
It's a direct quote from Trump about Johnson. "They call him Britain Trump."
And incidentally he was likely wrong, I don't think many did or do call him Britain Trump (though the number of comparisons has increased as his behaviour deterioriates further) for the reason turbotubbs gave, as different phrasing would have been used.
Trump got something wrong? I can hardly believe it!!!!!
Fair point, though the thing is people treat his words like that as gospel, when I'd want further corroboration as I dont automatically believe Trump.
I've been focusing too much on politics, even for me. I was watching the Lion King and kept thinking Boris was Scar, taking down May (Mufasa ignored one part of his kingdom, the 'citizens of nowhere' perhaps), and leading a hungry and desperate group of Hyenas (Tories) with the rather basic plea that they would never go hungry (for power) again, and he quickly led them to total power over the land, but it was led to ruin whilst the lioneses (ministers), waited on some entitled saviour (Rishi) to come and save them rather than act themselves. Now some of the hyenas are starting to tear him apart.
Where’s Ed Davey?
On the Today programme 8.10 slot talking about an additional tax on oil and gas producers.
O/T but I’ve been a bit gobsmacked this morning listening to the Today programme’s reporting and commentary on BP’s results this morning. They keep banging on about how BP and Shell’s profits could cover the whole of the UK’s energy bills and about a windfall tax.
Not once have they had the wit to say “this is great news for UK pensions as they will comprise a large portion of pension assets”.
There has been a small nod to Sunak being reluctant to make a windfall tax as it deters investment but it’s as if the editorial line is BP evil and they should give the money away.
Just luckily had someone on making the pensions point but the language and tone is very unbalanced from the presenters.
Now Ed Davey saying it’s “unfair”. FFS…..
Of course one of the reasons that their taxable profits are so high is that they have been cutting back on capital investment since the political class seems to think that we should be doing without oil in the future. In the UK the government fast tracked licences for 6 minor fields yesterday with Kwasi allegedly under pressure from Sunak to get them through but the Cambo field seems stuck in a political quagmire.
The costs of ‘net zero’ are about to be thrust to the centre of political debate. Politicians outside the Greens and the far left have so far avoided saying it directly, but bills have to go up massively.
How the government plays it is going to be interesting, they need to be careful of someone who can become as much of a thorn in their side over this, as Farage was over the EU. Hell, it might even be Farage himself again, opposing the “Green Crap” ( (c) David Cameron) from the right.
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1,661; Fieldwork: 1-2 February 2022)
I know you love Scotch sub-samples - that’s a stoning score for the Scottish Tories
What is evident, however, is how much Scons and Slab slither around and flip-flop in the relative rankings in those subsamples, from one poll to the next. Yesterday they were neck and neck.
Christ I hope the cannon fodder Tory MP on Today trying to defend Boris isn’t a barrister as his career is going to be shit when he loses his seat if that’s his attempt at arguing a defence……
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1,661; Fieldwork: 1-2 February 2022)
I know you love Scotch sub-samples - that’s a stoning score for the Scottish Tories
What is evident, however, is how much Scons and Slab slither around and flip-flop in the relative rankings in those subsamples, from one poll to the next. Yesterday they were neck and neck.
YouGov are the most reliable/least unreliable when it comes to geographical sub-samples. They are the only pollster to correctly weigh them.
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1,661; Fieldwork: 1-2 February 2022)
I know you love Scotch sub-samples - that’s a stoning score for the Scottish Tories
What is evident, however, is how much Scons and Slab slither around and flip-flop in the relative rankings in those subsamples, from one poll to the next. Yesterday they were neck and neck.
YouGov are the most reliable/least unreliable when it comes to geographical sub-samples. They are the only pollster to correctly weigh them.
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1,661; Fieldwork: 1-2 February 2022)
I know you love Scotch sub-samples - that’s a stoning score for the Scottish Tories
What is evident, however, is how much Scons and Slab slither around and flip-flop in the relative rankings in those subsamples, from one poll to the next. Yesterday they were neck and neck.
It’s a sub sample. Tho I do wonder if a Sunak premiership might give the Scots Tories a boost
The one thing that doesn’t change is the roughly 50/50 split between Yes and No (again suggested by this poll). We are now 8 years from the last indyref. 6 years from Brexyref
Nothing has shifted. There will not be a new indyref until a dramatic shift DOES occur. The risks are too high for either side
Christ I hope the cannon fodder Tory MP on Today trying to defend Boris isn’t a barrister as his career is going to be shit when he loses his seat if that’s his attempt at arguing a defence……
It was painful to listen to. The BBC smell blood, and they’re not going to let this drop.
Fuck me, I had low expectations for a Boris Johnson premiership, but he sinks so much lower than I thought was possible.
We need to be rid of Britain Trump.
Anyone who enables him will be spoken by history with all the warmth of the Vichy collaborators.
Incidentally, why is the phrase Britain Trump? Shouldn’t it be Britain’s Trump, or the British Trump?
It's a direct quote from Trump about Johnson. "They call him Britain Trump."
And incidentally he was likely wrong, I don't think many did or do call him Britain Trump (though the number of comparisons has increased as his behaviour deterioriates further) for the reason turbotubbs gave, as different phrasing would have been used.
Trump got something wrong? I can hardly believe it!!!!!
Fair point, though the thing is people treat his words like that as gospel, when I'd want further corroboration as I dont automatically believe Trump.
If in doubt, it's safer to automatically disbelieve Trump.
Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
Starmer did support the lockdowns, and may even have implemented more severe ones had he been in power.
But I'm struggling to see what that's got to do with anything.
The meat of the issue is:
1. Boris Johnson implemented very strict rules on peoples' activities, that prevented them from seeing friends and family; dying relatives; and going to funerals.
It then turned out that he was having a 'very good time' while the rest of us weren't.
This was bad, but quite survivable.
2. He then lied about it on multiple occasions.
Now, call me old fashioned, but this is where I get upset. The original offence was bad, but the Downing Street team was working incredibly hard, and I'm simply not going to throw my toys out the pram about them having a few drinks in the garden after work.
A simple apology would have sufficed.
But Boris doubled down, and lied.
3. He then attempted to distract from by throwing an accusation - under parliamentary privilege - that appears to be quite... evidence light...
Now, to me this isn't as bad as 2. I don't think it's appropriate. But it's the rough and tumble of parliamentary life.
To me, it's the lying I have an issue with. I expect the same from my leaders as I expect from children: an ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.
Indeed, can there be anything more important to the bond of trust between the governors and the governed? Blair lied, and his reputation never recovered.
Johnson has lied and lied and lied. And now it's time for him to go.
I'm referring to the outrage about tonight, not against Johnson in general.
Chances are, if Johnson had walked down that street, he would have similarly got attacked, only it would have been that he was taking the p1ss by drinking whilst imposing lockdowns.
The people were / are nutjobs. Trying to say their behaviour was caused by BJ is a stretch.
If Johnson had been "attacked" for his lying about parties during lockdown that would have been fully justified, it's true. Starmer being "attacked" over the slurs re Savile is not justified, it's not true. Therein lies the difference, there is no equivalence.
So basically attacking a MP is not the issue as long as the attack is done for legitimate reasons. Oh, and it’s a Tory.
No that's exactly why I put "attack" in inverted commas. You are a master of whataboutery and false equivalence. I was simply calling it out
Tech minister @CPhilpOfficial doubles, triples, quadruples down as he defends PM linking Savile + Starmer. “Opponents refer to each other’s track record" all the time, he tells @bbcnickrobinson
There is no story. Chevening is her official house as ForSec. She had a dinner party in her home. Rules were over.
Seven million people tested positive for Coronavirus in the UK during the Omicron wave so far (from beginning of December to end of January). It's likely that at least a quarter of the population caught Omicron during this wave.
This is the most non-story of all non-stories. There are certainly people who are trying to stymie a Liz Truss leadership bid, but they have remarkably little to work with.
I think people are missing the point this morning. It's not that the crazy extremists heard what Boris was saying, then decided to copy him. It's that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom heard what the crazy extremists were saying, and decided to copy them. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1490967055079964673
Thread header asks if its the Savile (wrongly spelt!) comment that finally brings down Boris. Possibly, but if it has resulted in more letters, it has been done without announcement by those doing so.
But I do wonder how much damage it has done to Starmer as well. For those who don't pay much attention to politics, they just hear Starmer and Savile in the same sentence. They may not have known his previous job involved decisions on prosecuting Savile. They probably have no idea of timelines, on whether it was him or his predecessor who made those calls. They may just take away Starmer could have - should have - done more to stop Savile. And that sticks. Starmer can't go on having to say he has no responsibility - when you are explaining, you are losing - unfair as that might be.
There is no political positive for Starmer in the shit Boris has flung around. It may do for Boris, but it might also have made his successor's task of winning the next election that bit easier.
Yes, I think that is the reason so many Tories are being mealy mouthed about the slur. They know Johnson is toast, so are hoping some mud sticks.
The Tories need a long spell in opposition to learn some manners and respect.
I'm no fan of Angela Rayner, but I believe she did eventually apologise and retract the comments. She certainly gave what was a heartfelt and (imo) sincere apology on Matt Forde's podcast.
So she didn't mean it when she said
We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute vile … banana republic, vile, nasty, Etonian … piece of scum,” she said at the event, before adding that she had “held back a little”.
It's quite impressive! Will be useful for getting from the square mile to other bits of London quickly.
I’m not sure what that guy means about Heathrow being “badly connected to London”.
This is nonsense. If you land at the refurbed T3 you can drop down to the gleaming Heathrow Express which will whisk you, in comfort, to central London (and Paddington) in 15 minutes
How many great cities have a main airport that well connected? Hong Kong. Singapore. Is that it? Dubai doesn’t count - it’s not a great city
And now with the Liz Line you’ll be able to go from Heathrow to the City in 25 minutes…
Heathrow is a bit of a dog's breakfast though. Heathrow Express is good but dumps you at Paddington which is a lovely station but not exactly central. This will improve things considerably and bring LHR more into line with a host of other great cities. It's a bit much to suggest Dubai isn't a great city. Perhaps not for a dilettantish tourist but as a business hub it's obviously a great city. KL has for years had a superb line (the KLIA Expres) and so on and so on.
Heathrow itself is just a bit of a mess. Boris was probably right that we needed a brand new airport on the other side of town. Would have been amazing but ridiculously expensive.
What great poet justice that would be if Therese Coffey had to resign, with her ghastly support for the economically and socially pointless UC cuts, and the just as pointless new sanctions announced last week, which she squashed her own department's research on ; having been disproven as achieving anything. One law for the rest indeed.
One mooted plan is to move Jacob Rees-Mogg to a new 'Brexit opportunities' ministerial post, potentially based out of the Cabinet Office, making way for Mark Spencer to replace him as Leader of the House of Commons.
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1,661; Fieldwork: 1-2 February 2022)
I know you love Scotch sub-samples - that’s a stoning score for the Scottish Tories
What is evident, however, is how much Scons and Slab slither around and flip-flop in the relative rankings in those subsamples, from one poll to the next. Yesterday they were neck and neck.
The one thing that doesn’t change is the roughly 50/50 split between Yes and No (again suggested by this poll). We are now 8 years from the last indyref. 6 years from Brexyref
Nothing has shifted
Strange that, with all those oldie yessers dying off……nearly a quarter of a million of them since 2014….around 6% of the electorate…..
Arch-loyalists set to reap rewards in reshuffle to shore up Johnson
Boris Johnson will carry out a minireshuffle as soon as today, with his chief whip potentially replacing Jacob Rees-Mogg as leader of the House of Commons.
Mark Spencer, who has been Johnson’s chief whip since he became prime minister in 2019, is in line for a sideways move after his role enforcing Conservative discipline was in effect superseded in recent weeks by a tight-knit group of longstanding Johnson loyalists.
Chris Pincher, the housing minister, who has been leading Johnson’s “shadow” whipping operation, is frontrunner to succeed Spencer, but other possibilities include Nigel Adams, a Cabinet Office minister and former whip, and Chris Heaton-Harris, minister for Europe at the Foreign Office and Tory chief whip in the European parliament.
Spencer, who has been a whip for almost six years, was said last night to be in line to replace Rees-Mogg as leader of the Commons. Rees-Mogg, a passionate defender of the prime minister, especially over the Downing Street parties saga, would be “looked after” with a seat of equivalent rank at the cabinet table, a senior source said.
JRM still not getting a Cabinet post then if its one of equivalent rank to now. Tragic.
It is not as if Jacob Rees-Mogg needs the money. Boris does need JRM though, as a human shield on Brexit, so I'd expect something that can at least be sold to the gullible as a promotion.
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
It was, let's be blunt, a none too disguised nasty smear, designed to get people thinking exactly what this mob were shouting.
An utter disgrace.
Still, kudos to Julian Smith, former Chief Whip and Northern Ireland Secretary, who seems to be one of the few Tory MPs with a moral compass.
I don't know who is worse. The moral degenerate who said it. Or the moral degenerates who even now are resolutely defending him.
Or the moral degenerates who defended Corbyn? Or who defended Brown during McBride's shitbaggery?
To make it clear: Johnson was in the wrong. However I would refer you to my post below: mistakes were made by the CPS and the police. What happened to those who made those critical mistakes?
(I think we all know the answer).
They really weren't. Read the background: the investigation found they things could probably have been done differently with possibly a different result. It wasn't a slam dunk. For instance the complainants said they weren't prepared to give evidence in court. The investigation said Well, if they had known about each other they might have been more confident. Really? Or they might have been confident enough to say they would, and then backed out at the last moment. This happens a lot.
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1,661; Fieldwork: 1-2 February 2022)
The South findings repeat previous surveys with added emphasis, and present a tactical voting problem. There are seats where it's obvious that the LibDems are close behind the Conservatives and the Labour vote will swing over heavily. But if you have a seat with a result like Con 40 LD 34 Lab 26, then it may well be that Labour is better-poised to take the seat, not least as that 34 will already have some tactical voting. In those seats I think the tacit deal to defer to each other will just break down. We probably need to accept that it'll work in most places but in some it just won't, and bar chart frenzy will be the order of the day.
In Scotland, I wonder if the Tory leadership's separation from Johnson is doing them some good, both directly because voters tend to agree and indirectly because it shows they're not puppets of London.
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
It was, let's be blunt, a none too disguised nasty smear, designed to get people thinking exactly what this mob were shouting.
An utter disgrace.
Still, kudos to Julian Smith, former Chief Whip and Northern Ireland Secretary, who seems to be one of the few Tory MPs with a moral compass.
I don't know who is worse. The moral degenerate who said it. Or the moral degenerates who even now are resolutely defending him.
Or the moral degenerates who defended Corbyn? Or who defended Brown during McBride's shitbaggery?
To make it clear: Johnson was in the wrong. However I would refer you to my post below: mistakes were made by the CPS and the police. What happened to those who made those critical mistakes?
(I think we all know the answer).
They really weren't. Read the background: the investigation found they things could probably have been done differently with possibly a different result. It wasn't a slam dunk. For instance the complainants said they weren't prepared to give evidence in court. The investigation said Well, if they had known about each other they might have been more confident. Really? Or they might have been confident enough to say they would, and then backed out at the last moment. This happens a lot.
So who in your view made what critical mistakes?
We'll never know, because the records were deleted.
And remember that this was just the end of a long chain of events where Saville got away with his behaviour, over decades.
It's quite impressive! Will be useful for getting from the square mile to other bits of London quickly.
I’m not sure what that guy means about Heathrow being “badly connected to London”.
This is nonsense. If you land at the refurbed T3 you can drop down to the gleaming Heathrow Express which will whisk you, in comfort, to central London (and Paddington) in 15 minutes
How many great cities have a main airport that well connected? Hong Kong. Singapore. Is that it? Dubai doesn’t count - it’s not a great city
And now with the Liz Line you’ll be able to go from Heathrow to the City in 25 minutes…
Heathrow is a bit of a dog's breakfast though. Heathrow Express is good but dumps you at Paddington which is a lovely station but not exactly central. This will improve things considerably and bring LHR more into line with a host of other great cities. It's a bit much to suggest Dubai isn't a great city. Perhaps not for a dilettantish tourist but as a business hub it's obviously a great city. KL has for years had a superb line (the KLIA Expres) and so on and so on.
Heathrow itself is just a bit of a mess. Boris was probably right that we needed a brand new airport on the other side of town. Would have been amazing but ridiculously expensive.
I disagree on almost all of this. For such a big old airport in such a massive world city Heathrow is way way more than a “dog’s breakfast”
Sure, it’s not Changi. But nowhere is. Sure, if you were starting from scratch you wouldn’t do it this way
But it is, for a start, almost perfectly located - this is the nation’s main airport as well as London’s. You could maybe argue that it would be slightly better if it was north of london - ie where Luton is - but it is still highly accessible for most of the UK. Near the M25. Off the M4. Very close to central london (unlike somewhere such as KL). Boris airport in the isle of Sheppey wouid have been stupidly remote for 80% of the UK
With its refurbs the terminals now sparkle - T3 and T5 are great (T5 has been voted the best terminal in the world)
The Heathrow express takes you to Paddington in 15 mins. And that is central london. Compare that with, say, JFK or LAX. There are also bus, tube and cab links. And now the Liz Line will make it even more accessible
It’s a great airport despite its legacy problems. The difficulty of expansion is the issue for the future
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
It was, let's be blunt, a none too disguised nasty smear, designed to get people thinking exactly what this mob were shouting.
An utter disgrace.
Still, kudos to Julian Smith, former Chief Whip and Northern Ireland Secretary, who seems to be one of the few Tory MPs with a moral compass.
I don't know who is worse. The moral degenerate who said it. Or the moral degenerates who even now are resolutely defending him.
Or the moral degenerates who defended Corbyn? Or who defended Brown during McBride's shitbaggery?
To make it clear: Johnson was in the wrong. However I would refer you to my post below: mistakes were made by the CPS and the police. What happened to those who made those critical mistakes?
(I think we all know the answer).
Smears good/bad.
One man's smears are another man's truth. For instance, I have zero doubt that Corbyn is an anti-Semite, and there is evidence to back that assertion up. I'm guessing you would see that as a smear.
That's another thing about this mess; if it had been a Conservative in charge of the CPS at the time, many of those defending Starmer would be saying: "Now convenient the records have been destroyed! How unlikely is it that the head of the organisation was not told of an investigation into a very public figure?"
Exactly, as I pointed out the other day Starmer was fully involved in the Chris Huhne case, but apparently knew absolutely nothing about the Saville case.
If it had been a SeniorTory as head of the CPS at the time this happened, would Labour just accept his word that he knew nothing.
I would suspect that the general approach would be that all significant decisions TO prosecute would be passed upwards. Less so decisions not to prosecute. As a general rule what embarrasses the CPS is failed prosecutions. Huge expense of public money to earn “not guilty” verdicts. Not failure to prosecute for lack of evidence sufficient for conviction.
It could be Rishi's last chance to act around now, like early last week. I don't think his chances are going to increase going forward, unless something cataclysmic happens ; and the direction-changing cataclysms, rather than the drip-drip like today, seem to have dried up for the moment.
Who was in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service at the the time? it was of course Sir Kier Starmer, the Boss.
It's easy to say that he had 6000 staff below him and therefore what they did wasn't much to do with him, when a corporation fails, it's usually the Chief Executive and the other directors that carry the can.
He needs to stop passing the buck and to admit that he was the person was ultimately responsible for the CPS and that he was the person ultimately responsible for the failure to bring Savile to justice.
Still trying to smear I see. You have clearly learnt nothing.
And in case you missed it, the CPS doesn't just prosecute on a whim. There has to be enough evidence to build a case that has a reasonable chance of ending in a conviction. You don't know what evidence was presented. Neither do you know how substantial the case was. You are just taking the opportunity to take a dig at Starmer from a position of complete ignorance.
Not smearing just saying, I don't know much about, for example drilling for oil, but when an oil company makes a mistake in that department and there's an environmental disaster does the boss of the oil company say 'oh it's nothing to do with me, it's the people under me, they failed to do what they were supposed to do'
Well he might say that but when it comes down to it, people look to the boss and if the operation is a success the boss gets the plaudits but when the operation fails the boss should get the blame.
Yep still smearing. Unless you are claiming that every accusation ever made should be prosecuted irrespective of the evidence then you are talking complete rubbish.
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1,661; Fieldwork: 1-2 February 2022)
I know you love Scotch sub-samples - that’s a stoning score for the Scottish Tories
What is evident, however, is how much Scons and Slab slither around and flip-flop in the relative rankings in those subsamples, from one poll to the next. Yesterday they were neck and neck.
The one thing that doesn’t change is the roughly 50/50 split between Yes and No (again suggested by this poll). We are now 8 years from the last indyref. 6 years from Brexyref
Nothing has shifted
Strange that, with all those oldie yessers dying off……nearly a quarter of a million of them since 2014….around 6% of the electorate…..
Oldie yessers? Do you mean oldie no-ers?
Anyway, it's probably a good indication of what I was trying to say the other day was true. That there's a lot more movement between Yes and No than some people suppose. People do change their minds. The polling stasis is evidence that the net flow is near zero, but not evidence that there is an impermeable barrier between the two sides.
The most likely conclusion is the most obvious. Young people are YES but as they age they become more cautious (“conservative”), see the downsides, and move to NO. But there are always new young people to rebalance things
The same process which is witnessed across human societies and throughout history. No reason Scotland is immune. The stasis is likely to endure
Thread header asks if its the Savile (wrongly spelt!) comment that finally brings down Boris. Possibly, but if it has resulted in more letters, it has been done without announcement by those doing so.
But I do wonder how much damage it has done to Starmer as well. For those who don't pay much attention to politics, they just hear Starmer and Savile in the same sentence. They may not have known his previous job involved decisions on prosecuting Savile. They probably have no idea of timelines, on whether it was him or his predecessor who made those calls. They may just take away Starmer could have - should have - done more to stop Savile. And that sticks. Starmer can't go on having to say he has no responsibility - when you are explaining, you are losing - unfair as that might be.
There is no political positive for Starmer in the shit Boris has flung around. It may do for Boris, but it might also have made his successor's task of winning the next election that bit easier.
Yes, I think that is the reason so many Tories are being mealy mouthed about the slur. They know Johnson is toast, so are hoping some mud sticks.
The Tories need a long spell in opposition to learn some manners and respect.
I'm no fan of Angela Rayner, but I believe she did eventually apologise and retract the comments. She certainly gave what was a heartfelt and (imo) sincere apology on Matt Forde's podcast.
So she didn't mean it when she said
We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute vile … banana republic, vile, nasty, Etonian … piece of scum,” she said at the event, before adding that she had “held back a little”.
Brilliant. So when one person says something offensive or untrue then that is ok for everyone else to do it is it?
Try that one in court. Sorry m'lud but X murdered someone so I thought it was ok if I did also.
PS At least X apologised for his mass murder (whether he meant it or not), but you are ok with your mass murderer getting off even if he wasn't, or couldn't even be arsed to pretend to be sorry.
Thread header asks if its the Savile (wrongly spelt!) comment that finally brings down Boris. Possibly, but if it has resulted in more letters, it has been done without announcement by those doing so.
But I do wonder how much damage it has done to Starmer as well. For those who don't pay much attention to politics, they just hear Starmer and Savile in the same sentence. They may not have known his previous job involved decisions on prosecuting Savile. They probably have no idea of timelines, on whether it was him or his predecessor who made those calls. They may just take away Starmer could have - should have - done more to stop Savile. And that sticks. Starmer can't go on having to say he has no responsibility - when you are explaining, you are losing - unfair as that might be.
There is no political positive for Starmer in the shit Boris has flung around. It may do for Boris, but it might also have made his successor's task of winning the next election that bit easier.
Yes, I think that is the reason so many Tories are being mealy mouthed about the slur. They know Johnson is toast, so are hoping some mud sticks.
The Tories need a long spell in opposition to learn some manners and respect.
I'm no fan of Angela Rayner, but I believe she did eventually apologise and retract the comments. She certainly gave what was a heartfelt and (imo) sincere apology on Matt Forde's podcast.
A poll that asks (a) Do you think that Johnson was right to suggest that Starmer let Saville off and (b) Do you think that Rayner was right to suggest that Tories are scum? eould be interesting, if probably disutrbing reading for all of us who try for civilised politics.
Labour trade spokesman @NickTorfaen said discussion showed the government was “considering dropping animal welfare and food standards and allowing hormone-treated beef into U.K. markets.”
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1,661; Fieldwork: 1-2 February 2022)
I know you love Scotch sub-samples - that’s a stoning score for the Scottish Tories
What is evident, however, is how much Scons and Slab slither around and flip-flop in the relative rankings in those subsamples, from one poll to the next. Yesterday they were neck and neck.
The one thing that doesn’t change is the roughly 50/50 split between Yes and No (again suggested by this poll). We are now 8 years from the last indyref. 6 years from Brexyref
Nothing has shifted
Strange that, with all those oldie yessers dying off……nearly a quarter of a million of them since 2014….around 6% of the electorate…..
Oldie yessers? Do you mean oldie no-ers?
Anyway, it's probably a good indication of what I was trying to say the other day was true. That there's a lot more movement between Yes and No than some people suppose. People do change their minds. The polling stasis is evidence that the net flow is near zero, but not evidence that there is an impermeable barrier between the two sides.
“Yes” to “remaining in the United Kingdom”.
When it’s asked again the SNP will not get away with a loaded question.
I agree there are probably around a third firmly in either camp, with the final third floating between the two. Hence last week’s desperate lying over pensions and contradicting their own 2014 prospectus.
Labour trade spokesman @NickTorfaen said discussion showed the government was “considering dropping animal welfare and food standards and allowing hormone-treated beef into U.K. markets.”
Brexit going back to its roots, as we were discussing last week.
It's quite impressive! Will be useful for getting from the square mile to other bits of London quickly.
I’m not sure what that guy means about Heathrow being “badly connected to London”.
This is nonsense. If you land at the refurbed T3 you can drop down to the gleaming Heathrow Express which will whisk you, in comfort, to central London (and Paddington) in 15 minutes
How many great cities have a main airport that well connected? Hong Kong. Singapore. Is that it? Dubai doesn’t count - it’s not a great city
And now with the Liz Line you’ll be able to go from Heathrow to the City in 25 minutes…
Heathrow is a bit of a dog's breakfast though. Heathrow Express is good but dumps you at Paddington which is a lovely station but not exactly central. This will improve things considerably and bring LHR more into line with a host of other great cities. It's a bit much to suggest Dubai isn't a great city. Perhaps not for a dilettantish tourist but as a business hub it's obviously a great city. KL has for years had a superb line (the KLIA Expres) and so on and so on.
Heathrow itself is just a bit of a mess. Boris was probably right that we needed a brand new airport on the other side of town. Would have been amazing but ridiculously expensive.
I disagree on almost all of this. For such a big old airport in such a massive world city Heathrow is way way more than a “dog’s breakfast”
Sure, it’s not Changi. But nowhere is. Sure, if you were starting from scratch you wouldn’t do it this way
But it is, for a start, almost perfectly located - this is the nation’s main airport as well as London’s. You could maybe argue that it would be slightly better if it was north of london - ie where Luton is - but it is still highly accessible for most of the UK. Near the M25. Off the M4. Very close to central london (unlike somewhere such as KL). Boris airport in the isle of Sheppey wouid have been stupidly remote for 80% of the UK
With its refurbs the terminals now sparkle - T3 and T5 are great (T5 has been voted the best terminal in the world)
The Heathrow express takes you to Paddington in 15 mins. And that is central london. Compare that with, say, JFK or LAX. There are also bus, tube and cab links. And now the Liz Line will make it even more accessible
It’s a great airport despite its legacy problems. The difficulty of expansion is the issue for the future
Heathrow expansion would be relatively easy if it took over RAF Northolt whose major function appears to be flying VIPs like the Queen, Boris and Ronnie Biggs.
O/T but I’ve been a bit gobsmacked this morning listening to the Today programme’s reporting and commentary on BP’s results this morning. They keep banging on about how BP and Shell’s profits could cover the whole of the UK’s energy bills and about a windfall tax.
Not once have they had the wit to say “this is great news for UK pensions as they will comprise a large portion of pension assets”.
There has been a small nod to Sunak being reluctant to make a windfall tax as it deters investment but it’s as if the editorial line is BP evil and they should give the money away.
Just luckily had someone on making the pensions point but the language and tone is very unbalanced from the presenters.
Now Ed Davey saying it’s “unfair”. FFS…..
When they were losing $20bn a year, as they were only a year ago, should the government have handed their shareholders a massive windfall to make up for it?
Of course not, so why should they be taxed on profits now?
If we need to reduce the price of oil and gas, then get fracking and stop relying on Putin for supplies.
Indeed. Ed Davey was asked how to tax profits made all over the world and he said that most of the profits were from the North Sea operations so we are already able to tax them.
I waited for the question to him “so actually if these massive profits are happening then we will automatically be getting a “windfall tax” on the increase on top of the uplift to pensions and BP having more money to invest in green energy development”.
But it never came.
Mostly from the North Sea?! I doubt that's been true for over 10 years.
It's quite impressive! Will be useful for getting from the square mile to other bits of London quickly.
I’m not sure what that guy means about Heathrow being “badly connected to London”.
This is nonsense. If you land at the refurbed T3 you can drop down to the gleaming Heathrow Express which will whisk you, in comfort, to central London (and Paddington) in 15 minutes
How many great cities have a main airport that well connected? Hong Kong. Singapore. Is that it? Dubai doesn’t count - it’s not a great city
And now with the Liz Line you’ll be able to go from Heathrow to the City in 25 minutes…
Heathrow is a bit of a dog's breakfast though. Heathrow Express is good but dumps you at Paddington which is a lovely station but not exactly central. This will improve things considerably and bring LHR more into line with a host of other great cities. It's a bit much to suggest Dubai isn't a great city. Perhaps not for a dilettantish tourist but as a business hub it's obviously a great city. KL has for years had a superb line (the KLIA Expres) and so on and so on.
Heathrow itself is just a bit of a mess. Boris was probably right that we needed a brand new airport on the other side of town. Would have been amazing but ridiculously expensive.
I disagree on almost all of this. For such a big old airport in such a massive world city Heathrow is way way more than a “dog’s breakfast”
Sure, it’s not Changi. But nowhere is. Sure, if you were starting from scratch you wouldn’t do it this way
But it is, for a start, almost perfectly located - this is the nation’s main airport as well as London’s. You could maybe argue that it would be slightly better if it was north of london - ie where Luton is - but it is still highly accessible for most of the UK. Near the M25. Off the M4. Very close to central london (unlike somewhere such as KL). Boris airport in the isle of Sheppey wouid have been stupidly remote for 80% of the UK
With its refurbs the terminals now sparkle - T3 and T5 are great (T5 has been voted the best terminal in the world)
The Heathrow express takes you to Paddington in 15 mins. And that is central london. Compare that with, say, JFK or LAX. There are also bus, tube and cab links. And now the Liz Line will make it even more accessible
It’s a great airport despite its legacy problems. The difficulty of expansion is the issue for the future
Nah. Heathrow is a mess and it's pretty grotty. I mean, I like travelling from it but it doesn't compare with the world's great airports: it has been left far, far, behind.
Paddington is not at all central. I love it and it's great but it's out on the west of London and a bit of a faff to reach from the centre.
Dubai is a wonderful airport but so is Abu Dhabi now. Most people are really critical of T5. I actually happen not to be but most of my traveller friends, including pilots, think it's by now tired and grotty. I can see their point tbh. It's been left far, far, behind.
KLIA to Sentral Station takes 28 minutes so I've no idea what you're on about and the motorway links are much better.
Which leads me to the real Achilles heel of LHR: the Heathrow Spur. The road system around and into Heathrow is a complete mess and frequently jams. I grant you that JFK and LAX are worse but, bloody hell, if you're comparing Britain with America on airports (or airlines) then you have set the bar extremely low. Part of the problem is that the M25 and M4 simply cannot hold the capacity and that junction 15 is a godawful mess. I assume you never use it from your comments.
It's to the East we should look for the great airports of the world. I can list you half a dozen finer airports and better transport infrastructure. Extend that to the middle east and we're approaching a dozen. Just way way better: cleaner, slicker, faster.
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
It was, let's be blunt, a none too disguised nasty smear, designed to get people thinking exactly what this mob were shouting.
An utter disgrace.
Still, kudos to Julian Smith, former Chief Whip and Northern Ireland Secretary, who seems to be one of the few Tory MPs with a moral compass.
I don't know who is worse. The moral degenerate who said it. Or the moral degenerates who even now are resolutely defending him.
Or the moral degenerates who defended Corbyn? Or who defended Brown during McBride's shitbaggery?
To make it clear: Johnson was in the wrong. However I would refer you to my post below: mistakes were made by the CPS and the police. What happened to those who made those critical mistakes?
(I think we all know the answer).
They really weren't. Read the background: the investigation found they things could probably have been done differently with possibly a different result. It wasn't a slam dunk. For instance the complainants said they weren't prepared to give evidence in court. The investigation said Well, if they had known about each other they might have been more confident. Really? Or they might have been confident enough to say they would, and then backed out at the last moment. This happens a lot.
So who in your view made what critical mistakes?
We'll never know, because the records were deleted.
And remember that this was just the end of a long chain of events where Saville got away with his behaviour, over decades.
You are, with respect, dealing in second hand smears.
The records were destroyed *in line with standard practice*
We do nonetheless know a lot because these events of 2009 were investigated and a report delivered in 2013. I bet you don't know without googling who did the investigation?
Your final paragraph is sublimely irrelevant. Do you think the CPS is in charge of the police?
Thread header asks if its the Savile (wrongly spelt!) comment that finally brings down Boris. Possibly, but if it has resulted in more letters, it has been done without announcement by those doing so.
But I do wonder how much damage it has done to Starmer as well. For those who don't pay much attention to politics, they just hear Starmer and Savile in the same sentence. They may not have known his previous job involved decisions on prosecuting Savile. They probably have no idea of timelines, on whether it was him or his predecessor who made those calls. They may just take away Starmer could have - should have - done more to stop Savile. And that sticks. Starmer can't go on having to say he has no responsibility - when you are explaining, you are losing - unfair as that might be.
There is no political positive for Starmer in the shit Boris has flung around. It may do for Boris, but it might also have made his successor's task of winning the next election that bit easier.
Yes, I think that is the reason so many Tories are being mealy mouthed about the slur. They know Johnson is toast, so are hoping some mud sticks.
The Tories need a long spell in opposition to learn some manners and respect.
I'm no fan of Angela Rayner, but I believe she did eventually apologise and retract the comments. She certainly gave what was a heartfelt and (imo) sincere apology on Matt Forde's podcast.
So she didn't mean it when she said
We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute vile … banana republic, vile, nasty, Etonian … piece of scum,” she said at the event, before adding that she had “held back a little”.
Brilliant. So when one person says something offensive or untrue then that is ok for everyone else to do it is it?
Try that one in court. Sorry m'lud but X murdered someone so I thought it was ok if I did also.
PS At least X apologised for his mass murder (whether he meant it or not), but you are ok with your mass murderer getting off even if he wasn't, or couldn't even be arsed to pretend to be sorry.
Worth trying an analogy and see if it holds up.
And it creates the spiral that leads to this kind of mature reasoned public discourse.
It could be Rishi's last chance to act around now, like early last week. I don't think his chances are going to increase going forward, unless something cataclysmic happens ; and the direction-changing cataclysms, rather than drip-drip like today, seem to have dried up, for the moment.
The problem for Sunak is that he’s made a stand over certain big spending/tax issues recently and I get the impression that he’s actually a man of principle so he has the dilemma that he could walk out and maybe bring down Boris or stay.
If he walks out and it doesn’t bring down Boris then he knows Boris will have a free hand to put in a yes man at the treasury (and he’s going to select his yes man more carefully this time I imagine…) and undo any “sound money” approach.
If he walks and brings down Boris then there is no guarantee he will replace Boris so again runs the risk that his “sound money” attitude might be ignored as a new leader turns on the taps to try and ensure a win at next election.
So if you are a man of principle (which I believe he is) then what do you do, walk away and risk a disaster or stay and manage it as best you can and the. If things change fundamentally re Boris then hopefully you get the gig and carry on?
It’s maybe like being on a ship where the Captain is pissed and you have the opportunity to jump ship at a port stop off but you know if you do then you were the only one who was fixing the captain’s navigation errors and so if you leave there is a higher chance the ship hits the rocks and everyone dies.
You can stay and try and stop it and hope that the captain gets replaced or jump ship and save yourself.
It's quite impressive! Will be useful for getting from the square mile to other bits of London quickly.
I’m not sure what that guy means about Heathrow being “badly connected to London”.
This is nonsense. If you land at the refurbed T3 you can drop down to the gleaming Heathrow Express which will whisk you, in comfort, to central London (and Paddington) in 15 minutes
How many great cities have a main airport that well connected? Hong Kong. Singapore. Is that it? Dubai doesn’t count - it’s not a great city
And now with the Liz Line you’ll be able to go from Heathrow to the City in 25 minutes…
Heathrow is a bit of a dog's breakfast though. Heathrow Express is good but dumps you at Paddington which is a lovely station but not exactly central. This will improve things considerably and bring LHR more into line with a host of other great cities. It's a bit much to suggest Dubai isn't a great city. Perhaps not for a dilettantish tourist but as a business hub it's obviously a great city. KL has for years had a superb line (the KLIA Expres) and so on and so on.
Heathrow itself is just a bit of a mess. Boris was probably right that we needed a brand new airport on the other side of town. Would have been amazing but ridiculously expensive.
I disagree on almost all of this. For such a big old airport in such a massive world city Heathrow is way way more than a “dog’s breakfast”
Sure, it’s not Changi. But nowhere is. Sure, if you were starting from scratch you wouldn’t do it this way
But it is, for a start, almost perfectly located - this is the nation’s main airport as well as London’s. You could maybe argue that it would be slightly better if it was north of london - ie where Luton is - but it is still highly accessible for most of the UK. Near the M25. Off the M4. Very close to central london (unlike somewhere such as KL). Boris airport in the isle of Sheppey wouid have been stupidly remote for 80% of the UK
With its refurbs the terminals now sparkle - T3 and T5 are great (T5 has been voted the best terminal in the world)
The Heathrow express takes you to Paddington in 15 mins. And that is central london. Compare that with, say, JFK or LAX. There are also bus, tube and cab links. And now the Liz Line will make it even more accessible
It’s a great airport despite its legacy problems. The difficulty of expansion is the issue for the future
Nah. Heathrow is a mess and it's pretty grotty. I mean, I like travelling from it but it doesn't compare with the world's great airports: it has been left far, far, behind.
Paddington is not at all central. I love it and it's great but it's out on the west of London and a bit of a faff to reach from the centre.
Dubai is a wonderful airport but so is Abu Dhabi now. Most people are really critical of T5. I actually happen not to be but most of my traveller friends, including pilots, think it's by now tired and grotty. I can see their point tbh. It's been left far, far, behind.
KLIA to Sentral Station takes 28 minutes so I've no idea what you're on about and the motorway links are much better.
Which leads me to the real Achilles heel of LHR: the Heathrow Spur. The road system around and into Heathrow is a complete mess and frequently jams. I grant you that JFK and LAX are worse but, bloody hell, if you're comparing Britain with America on airports (or airlines) then you have set the bar extremely low. Part of the problem is that the M25 and M4 simply cannot hold the capacity and that junction 15 is a godawful mess. I assume you never use it from your comments.
It's to the East we should look for the great airports of the world. I can list you half a dozen finer airports and better transport infrastructure. Extend that to the middle east and we're approaching a dozen. Just way way better: cleaner, slicker, faster.
Jeeps. I've not even mentioned Doha which is the airport I use most frequently.
An absolutely stunning airport. A thousand times better than Heathrow.
The Heathrow express takes you to Paddington in 15 mins. And that is central london. Compare that with, say, JFK or LAX. There are also bus, tube and cab links. And now the Liz Line will make it even more accessible
Heathrow Express's days are numbered once Crossrail is up and running. XR will be a little bit slower to Paddington (24 vs 15) but Paddington is out in the sticks - most Heathrow passengers will connect into XR at TCR, Farringdon or Liverpool Street. And Heathrow Express is an enormous waste of capacity on the Great Western fast tracks.
The Heathrow Express contract is up for renewal in 2023. My suspicion is that Crossrail will have taken so many of its passengers that it'll be downgraded to a half-hourly service and possibly shunted onto the slow tracks.
After more than five hours of talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, there was little doubt Emmanuel Macron walked into the grizzly bear’s den — and he got mauled.
It could be Rishi's last chance to act around now, like early last week. I don't think his chances are going to increase going forward, unless something cataclysmic happens ; and the direction-changing cataclysms, rather than drip-drip like today, seem to have dried up, for the moment.
The problem for Sunak is that he’s made a stand over certain big spending/tax issues recently and I get the impression that he’s actually a man of principle so he has the dilemma that he could walk out and maybe bring down Boris or stay.
If he walks out and it doesn’t bring down Boris then he knows Boris will have a free hand to put in a yes man at the treasury (and he’s going to select his yes man more carefully this time I imagine…) and undo any “sound money” approach.
If he walks and brings down Boris then there is no guarantee he will replace Boris so again runs the risk that his “sound money” attitude might be ignored as a new leader turns on the taps to try and ensure a win at next election.
So if you are a man of principle (which I believe he is) then what do you do, walk away and risk a disaster or stay and manage it as best you can and the. If things change fundamentally re Boris then hopefully you get the gig and carry on?
It’s maybe like being on a ship where the Captain is pissed and you have the opportunity to jump ship at a port stop off but you know if you do then you were the only one who was fixing the captain’s navigation errors and so if you leave there is a higher chance the ship hits the rocks and everyone dies.
You can stay and try and stop it and hope that the captain gets replaced or jump ship and save yourself.
A reasonable enough description of the dilemma faced by SKS during the Corbyn years in fairness.
Thread header asks if its the Savile (wrongly spelt!) comment that finally brings down Boris. Possibly, but if it has resulted in more letters, it has been done without announcement by those doing so.
But I do wonder how much damage it has done to Starmer as well. For those who don't pay much attention to politics, they just hear Starmer and Savile in the same sentence. They may not have known his previous job involved decisions on prosecuting Savile. They probably have no idea of timelines, on whether it was him or his predecessor who made those calls. They may just take away Starmer could have - should have - done more to stop Savile. And that sticks. Starmer can't go on having to say he has no responsibility - when you are explaining, you are losing - unfair as that might be.
There is no political positive for Starmer in the shit Boris has flung around. It may do for Boris, but it might also have made his successor's task of winning the next election that bit easier.
Yes, I think that is the reason so many Tories are being mealy mouthed about the slur. They know Johnson is toast, so are hoping some mud sticks.
The Tories need a long spell in opposition to learn some manners and respect.
I'm no fan of Angela Rayner, but I believe she did eventually apologise and retract the comments. She certainly gave what was a heartfelt and (imo) sincere apology on Matt Forde's podcast.
A poll that asks (a) Do you think that Johnson was right to suggest that Starmer let Saville off and (b) Do you think that Rayner was right to suggest that Tories are scum? eould be interesting, if probably disutrbing reading for all of us who try for civilised politics.
It's comparing apples and pears. One is a value judgement -which is becoming more prescient by the day-and the other is a lie.
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
It was, let's be blunt, a none too disguised nasty smear, designed to get people thinking exactly what this mob were shouting.
An utter disgrace.
Still, kudos to Julian Smith, former Chief Whip and Northern Ireland Secretary, who seems to be one of the few Tory MPs with a moral compass.
I don't know who is worse. The moral degenerate who said it. Or the moral degenerates who even now are resolutely defending him.
Or the moral degenerates who defended Corbyn? Or who defended Brown during McBride's shitbaggery?
To make it clear: Johnson was in the wrong. However I would refer you to my post below: mistakes were made by the CPS and the police. What happened to those who made those critical mistakes?
(I think we all know the answer).
Smears good/bad.
One man's smears are another man's truth. For instance, I have zero doubt that Corbyn is an anti-Semite, and there is evidence to back that assertion up. I'm guessing you would see that as a smear.
That's another thing about this mess; if it had been a Conservative in charge of the CPS at the time, many of those defending Starmer would be saying: "Now convenient the records have been destroyed! How unlikely is it that the head of the organisation was not told of an investigation into a very public figure?"
Exactly, as I pointed out the other day Starmer was fully involved in the Chris Huhne case, but apparently knew absolutely nothing about the Saville case.
If it had been a SeniorTory as head of the CPS at the time this happened, would Labour just accept his word that he knew nothing.
Admittedly I am relying on what plenty of others are saying, but it includes people there at the time and who have no reason to lie and it seems plenty clear cut that this is a smear. Even Boris and his supporters aren't claiming Starmer knew now. It seems it is only you that doesn't believe everyone else. I wonder why?
My only reservation on that is a timing issue that @tlg86 pointed out in a discussion some days ago. As that has never resurfaced I assume I was either incorrect in reporting what was said or what was said was wrong and irrelevant or more complicated than that.
I have no doubt the mob yesterday were demonstrating about vaccines and Assange but on seeing Starmer latched onto the Savile comment
It is just distasteful but I have decided to stop beating myself up over conservative mps lack of action, for my own peace of mind
If they cannot take the right action then they deserve to go into opposition for a very long time
I agree and like your approach very much. I think I'm going to take a bit of a back seat from it all for much the same reasons you mention and for my peace of mind.
The Heathrow express takes you to Paddington in 15 mins. And that is central london. Compare that with, say, JFK or LAX. There are also bus, tube and cab links. And now the Liz Line will make it even more accessible
Heathrow Express's days are numbered once Crossrail is up and running. XR will be a little bit slower to Paddington (24 vs 15) but Paddington is out in the sticks - most Heathrow passengers will connect into XR at TCR, Farringdon or Liverpool Street. And Heathrow Express is an enormous waste of capacity on the Great Western fast tracks.
The Heathrow Express contract is up for renewal in 2023. My suspicion is that Crossrail will have taken so many of its passengers that it'll be downgraded to a half-hourly service and possibly shunted onto the slow tracks.
Not to mention that HEX is the most expensive train journey in the world, by time and distance.
Ripping off visitors for a train or taxi as soon as they arrive, doesn’t help London’s reputation.
Plus, being blunt, a lot of the outrage this evening seems confected. It's well known Starmer supported the Government lockdowns and would probably have gone further. So the fact he got surrounded by a bunch of nutjobs and weirdos campaigning against lockdowns is not exactly surprising. They didn't need BJ to tell them to get in Starmer's face. If you want hate, try walking to the Tory conference in Manchester with a sign saying you are Conservative.
Starmer did support the lockdowns, and may even have implemented more severe ones had he been in power.
But I'm struggling to see what that's got to do with anything.
The meat of the issue is:
1. Boris Johnson implemented very strict rules on peoples' activities, that prevented them from seeing friends and family; dying relatives; and going to funerals.
It then turned out that he was having a 'very good time' while the rest of us weren't.
This was bad, but quite survivable.
2. He then lied about it on multiple occasions.
Now, call me old fashioned, but this is where I get upset. The original offence was bad, but the Downing Street team was working incredibly hard, and I'm simply not going to throw my toys out the pram about them having a few drinks in the garden after work.
A simple apology would have sufficed.
But Boris doubled down, and lied.
3. He then attempted to distract from by throwing an accusation - under parliamentary privilege - that appears to be quite... evidence light...
Now, to me this isn't as bad as 2. I don't think it's appropriate. But it's the rough and tumble of parliamentary life.
To me, it's the lying I have an issue with. I expect the same from my leaders as I expect from children: an ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.
Indeed, can there be anything more important to the bond of trust between the governors and the governed? Blair lied, and his reputation never recovered.
Johnson has lied and lied and lied. And now it's time for him to go.
I'm referring to the outrage about tonight, not against Johnson in general.
Chances are, if Johnson had walked down that street, he would have similarly got attacked, only it would have been that he was taking the p1ss by drinking whilst imposing lockdowns.
The people were / are nutjobs. Trying to say their behaviour was caused by BJ is a stretch.
If Johnson had been "attacked" for his lying about parties during lockdown that would have been fully justified, it's true. Starmer being "attacked" over the slurs re Savile is not justified, it's not true. Therein lies the difference, there is no equivalence.
So basically attacking a MP is not the issue as long as the attack is done for legitimate reasons. Oh, and it’s a Tory.
No that's exactly why I put "attack" in inverted commas. You are a master of whataboutery and false equivalence. I was simply calling it out
Let me rephrase then: So basically "attacking" a MP is not the issue as long as the attack is done for legitimate reasons.
Your words were "If Johnson had been "attacked" for his lying about parties during lockdown that would have been fully justified, it's true. Starmer being "attacked" over the slurs re Savile is not justified, it's not true. Therein lies the difference, there is no equivalence."
That reads as though if that mob had attacked Johnson and were calling out his drinks parties, that would have been ok. So your point implies that it is not the "attacking" that it is the problem but whether it's justified. I'd argue that is not a great view since justification is often in the eye of the beholder.
The Heathrow express takes you to Paddington in 15 mins. And that is central london. Compare that with, say, JFK or LAX. There are also bus, tube and cab links. And now the Liz Line will make it even more accessible
Heathrow Express's days are numbered once Crossrail is up and running. XR will be a little bit slower to Paddington (24 vs 15) but Paddington is out in the sticks - most Heathrow passengers will connect into XR at TCR, Farringdon or Liverpool Street. And Heathrow Express is an enormous waste of capacity on the Great Western fast tracks.
The Heathrow Express contract is up for renewal in 2023. My suspicion is that Crossrail will have taken so many of its passengers that it'll be downgraded to a half-hourly service and possibly shunted onto the slow tracks.
Not to mention that HEX is the most expensive train journey in the world, by time and distance.
Ripping off visitors for a train or taxi as soon as they arrive, doesn’t help London’s reputation.
It's one of the few trains out there where the price of the ticket actually pays for the whole operation. As opposed to being massively subsidised.
The Heathrow Express has a contract guaranteeing access to the track necessary for the advertised time. When John Prescott was in charge of transport, he wanted them de-prioritised, but couldn't do it.
The first day of 'reset' has been a complete disaster I would say.
FFS get the letters in.
It reminds me a bit of Gordo, he just couldn't catch a break when he tried to relaunch, which is magnified when the media are ready to pick up every little thing. Obviously to some extent you make your own luck.
At least Brown was well meaning and trying. This PM is a mendacious cad and a scoundrel to boot who would lie to his own grandmother and probably sell her for two seconds of positive TV.
I have a very different memory of Brown being "well meaning". A man who consistently briefed and smear opponents both his own side and the opposition. Smear-gate blew up in his face, but apparently he had no idea the two blokes sitting right next to him in his office had been busy planning all of this. About as believable as Boris having no idea that he was going to a party.
I'm sorry, but are you seriously saying any of the silly games that Whelan and co played compares with this Trumpian level of absolute lying, smearing, hate inducing, mob rising bollocks?
Johnson is another order of magnitude.
Negative briefings from the Red Lion seem quaint by comparison.
The smears that Brown's henchmen were responsible for were pretty nasty, personal, aimed at politicians' wives and children and deeply misogynistic. They were every bit as nasty as this one and completely unjustified. They were not simply silly games and they shamed Labour just as the PM's behaviour shames his party.
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
It was, let's be blunt, a none too disguised nasty smear, designed to get people thinking exactly what this mob were shouting.
An utter disgrace.
Still, kudos to Julian Smith, former Chief Whip and Northern Ireland Secretary, who seems to be one of the few Tory MPs with a moral compass.
I don't know who is worse. The moral degenerate who said it. Or the moral degenerates who even now are resolutely defending him.
Or the moral degenerates who defended Corbyn? Or who defended Brown during McBride's shitbaggery?
To make it clear: Johnson was in the wrong. However I would refer you to my post below: mistakes were made by the CPS and the police. What happened to those who made those critical mistakes?
(I think we all know the answer).
Smears good/bad.
One man's smears are another man's truth. For instance, I have zero doubt that Corbyn is an anti-Semite, and there is evidence to back that assertion up. I'm guessing you would see that as a smear.
That's another thing about this mess; if it had been a Conservative in charge of the CPS at the time, many of those defending Starmer would be saying: "Now convenient the records have been destroyed! How unlikely is it that the head of the organisation was not told of an investigation into a very public figure?"
Exactly, as I pointed out the other day Starmer was fully involved in the Chris Huhne case, but apparently knew absolutely nothing about the Saville case.
If it had been a SeniorTory as head of the CPS at the time this happened, would Labour just accept his word that he knew nothing.
I would suspect that the general approach would be that all significant decisions TO prosecute would be passed upwards. Less so decisions not to prosecute. As a general rule what embarrasses the CPS is failed prosecutions. Huge expense of public money to earn “not guilty” verdicts. Not failure to prosecute for lack of evidence sufficient for conviction.
But that is the criticism of SKS as DPP. He was excessively cautious.
Now maybe that is the mindset of the CPS, but it should not be. There has been a long history of failure to prosecute child abusers (the North Wales Child abuse scandals, the various grooming gangs, and so on).
The same with rape. E.g., the failure to prosecute all of the Warboys cases leading to his attempted early release (another case where SKS hardly covered himself in glory).
And it is reasonable to ask why this is -- and it is reasonable to conclude that the mindset of CPS is part of the problem.
It seems to me perfectly fair that SKS's record is examined.
And it seems to me fair to conclude that SKS's record is pretty mixed.
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
It was, let's be blunt, a none too disguised nasty smear, designed to get people thinking exactly what this mob were shouting.
An utter disgrace.
Still, kudos to Julian Smith, former Chief Whip and Northern Ireland Secretary, who seems to be one of the few Tory MPs with a moral compass.
I don't know who is worse. The moral degenerate who said it. Or the moral degenerates who even now are resolutely defending him.
Or the moral degenerates who defended Corbyn? Or who defended Brown during McBride's shitbaggery?
To make it clear: Johnson was in the wrong. However I would refer you to my post below: mistakes were made by the CPS and the police. What happened to those who made those critical mistakes?
(I think we all know the answer).
They really weren't. Read the background: the investigation found they things could probably have been done differently with possibly a different result. It wasn't a slam dunk. For instance the complainants said they weren't prepared to give evidence in court. The investigation said Well, if they had known about each other they might have been more confident. Really? Or they might have been confident enough to say they would, and then backed out at the last moment. This happens a lot.
So who in your view made what critical mistakes?
We'll never know, because the records were deleted.
And remember that this was just the end of a long chain of events where Saville got away with his behaviour, over decades.
You are, with respect, dealing in second hand smears.
The records were destroyed *in line with standard practice*
We do nonetheless know a lot because these events of 2009 were investigated and a report delivered in 2013. I bet you don't know without googling who did the investigation?
Your final paragraph is sublimely irrelevant. Do you think the CPS is in charge of the police?
Why was SKS fully involved in the Chris Huhne case but knew absolutely nothing about the Saville case?
It could be Rishi's last chance to act around now, like early last week. I don't think his chances are going to increase going forward, unless something cataclysmic happens ; and the direction-changing cataclysms, rather than drip-drip like today, seem to have dried up, for the moment.
The problem for Sunak is that he’s made a stand over certain big spending/tax issues recently and I get the impression that he’s actually a man of principle so he has the dilemma that he could walk out and maybe bring down Boris or stay.
If he walks out and it doesn’t bring down Boris then he knows Boris will have a free hand to put in a yes man at the treasury (and he’s going to select his yes man more carefully this time I imagine…) and undo any “sound money” approach.
If he walks and brings down Boris then there is no guarantee he will replace Boris so again runs the risk that his “sound money” attitude might be ignored as a new leader turns on the taps to try and ensure a win at next election.
So if you are a man of principle (which I believe he is) then what do you do, walk away and risk a disaster or stay and manage it as best you can and the. If things change fundamentally re Boris then hopefully you get the gig and carry on?
It’s maybe like being on a ship where the Captain is pissed and you have the opportunity to jump ship at a port stop off but you know if you do then you were the only one who was fixing the captain’s navigation errors and so if you leave there is a higher chance the ship hits the rocks and everyone dies.
You can stay and try and stop it and hope that the captain gets replaced or jump ship and save yourself.
A reasonable enough description of the dilemma faced by SKS during the Corbyn years in fairness.
Starmer the valiant hero stayed to save us all and kick Jews out of the Labour party.
Before I get accused of being a fan of Starmer or an anti semite I don't think he is a valiant hero and I am not a fan of his anti Jewish crusade.
O/T but I’ve been a bit gobsmacked this morning listening to the Today programme’s reporting and commentary on BP’s results this morning. They keep banging on about how BP and Shell’s profits could cover the whole of the UK’s energy bills and about a windfall tax.
Not once have they had the wit to say “this is great news for UK pensions as they will comprise a large portion of pension assets”.
There has been a small nod to Sunak being reluctant to make a windfall tax as it deters investment but it’s as if the editorial line is BP evil and they should give the money away.
Just luckily had someone on making the pensions point but the language and tone is very unbalanced from the presenters.
Now Ed Davey saying it’s “unfair”. FFS…..
When they were losing $20bn a year, as they were only a year ago, should the government have handed their shareholders a massive windfall to make up for it?
Of course not, so why should they be taxed on profits now?
If we need to reduce the price of oil and gas, then get fracking and stop relying on Putin for supplies.
Indeed. Ed Davey was asked how to tax profits made all over the world and he said that most of the profits were from the North Sea operations so we are already able to tax them.
I waited for the question to him “so actually if these massive profits are happening then we will automatically be getting a “windfall tax” on the increase on top of the uplift to pensions and BP having more money to invest in green energy development”.
But it never came.
Mostly from the North Sea?! I doubt that's been true for over 10 years.
5 live interviewed a SNP mp this morning who ruled out a windfall tax which may surprise some
In the same programme they did explain how the profits are invested in UK pensions and that the industry last year made less than one billion and that the enormous cost of transitioning to green energy requires sustained profit and investments
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
It was, let's be blunt, a none too disguised nasty smear, designed to get people thinking exactly what this mob were shouting.
An utter disgrace.
Still, kudos to Julian Smith, former Chief Whip and Northern Ireland Secretary, who seems to be one of the few Tory MPs with a moral compass.
I don't know who is worse. The moral degenerate who said it. Or the moral degenerates who even now are resolutely defending him.
Or the moral degenerates who defended Corbyn? Or who defended Brown during McBride's shitbaggery?
To make it clear: Johnson was in the wrong. However I would refer you to my post below: mistakes were made by the CPS and the police. What happened to those who made those critical mistakes?
(I think we all know the answer).
Smears good/bad.
One man's smears are another man's truth. For instance, I have zero doubt that Corbyn is an anti-Semite, and there is evidence to back that assertion up. I'm guessing you would see that as a smear.
That's another thing about this mess; if it had been a Conservative in charge of the CPS at the time, many of those defending Starmer would be saying: "Now convenient the records have been destroyed! How unlikely is it that the head of the organisation was not told of an investigation into a very public figure?"
Exactly, as I pointed out the other day Starmer was fully involved in the Chris Huhne case, but apparently knew absolutely nothing about the Saville case.
If it had been a SeniorTory as head of the CPS at the time this happened, would Labour just accept his word that he knew nothing.
Admittedly I am relying on what plenty of others are saying, but it includes people there at the time and who have no reason to lie and it seems plenty clear cut that this is a smear. Even Boris and his supporters aren't claiming Starmer knew now. It seems it is only you that doesn't believe everyone else. I wonder why?
My only reservation on that is a timing issue that @tlg86 pointed out in a discussion some days ago. As that has never resurfaced I assume I was either incorrect in reporting what was said or what was said was wrong and irrelevant or more complicated than that.
It is a smear, but the Huhne point does bite Starmer rather effectively in the arse. He should never have been giving press conferences about decisions to prosecute, it was clearly unnecessary and prejudicial and he did it purely to raise his own profile. Starmer karma as it were.
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
It was, let's be blunt, a none too disguised nasty smear, designed to get people thinking exactly what this mob were shouting.
An utter disgrace.
Still, kudos to Julian Smith, former Chief Whip and Northern Ireland Secretary, who seems to be one of the few Tory MPs with a moral compass.
I don't know who is worse. The moral degenerate who said it. Or the moral degenerates who even now are resolutely defending him.
Or the moral degenerates who defended Corbyn? Or who defended Brown during McBride's shitbaggery?
To make it clear: Johnson was in the wrong. However I would refer you to my post below: mistakes were made by the CPS and the police. What happened to those who made those critical mistakes?
(I think we all know the answer).
They really weren't. Read the background: the investigation found they things could probably have been done differently with possibly a different result. It wasn't a slam dunk. For instance the complainants said they weren't prepared to give evidence in court. The investigation said Well, if they had known about each other they might have been more confident. Really? Or they might have been confident enough to say they would, and then backed out at the last moment. This happens a lot.
So who in your view made what critical mistakes?
We'll never know, because the records were deleted.
And remember that this was just the end of a long chain of events where Saville got away with his behaviour, over decades.
You are, with respect, dealing in second hand smears.
The records were destroyed *in line with standard practice*
We do nonetheless know a lot because these events of 2009 were investigated and a report delivered in 2013. I bet you don't know without googling who did the investigation?
Your final paragraph is sublimely irrelevant. Do you think the CPS is in charge of the police?
Why was SKS fully involved in the Chris Huhne case but knew absolutely nothing about the Saville case?
O/T but I’ve been a bit gobsmacked this morning listening to the Today programme’s reporting and commentary on BP’s results this morning. They keep banging on about how BP and Shell’s profits could cover the whole of the UK’s energy bills and about a windfall tax.
Not once have they had the wit to say “this is great news for UK pensions as they will comprise a large portion of pension assets”.
There has been a small nod to Sunak being reluctant to make a windfall tax as it deters investment but it’s as if the editorial line is BP evil and they should give the money away.
Just luckily had someone on making the pensions point but the language and tone is very unbalanced from the presenters.
Now Ed Davey saying it’s “unfair”. FFS…..
When they were losing $20bn a year, as they were only a year ago, should the government have handed their shareholders a massive windfall to make up for it?
Of course not, so why should they be taxed on profits now?
If we need to reduce the price of oil and gas, then get fracking and stop relying on Putin for supplies.
Indeed. Ed Davey was asked how to tax profits made all over the world and he said that most of the profits were from the North Sea operations so we are already able to tax them.
I waited for the question to him “so actually if these massive profits are happening then we will automatically be getting a “windfall tax” on the increase on top of the uplift to pensions and BP having more money to invest in green energy development”.
But it never came.
Mostly from the North Sea?! I doubt that's been true for over 10 years.
5 live interviewed a SNP mp this morning who ruled out a windfall tax which may surprise some
In the same programme they did explain how the profits are invested in UK pensions and that the industry last year made less than one billion and that the enormous cost of transitioning to green energy requires sustained profit and investments
The SNP don’t want any windfall tax that doesn’t go straight to the Scottish government, independent of the Barnett Formula.
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
It was, let's be blunt, a none too disguised nasty smear, designed to get people thinking exactly what this mob were shouting.
An utter disgrace.
Still, kudos to Julian Smith, former Chief Whip and Northern Ireland Secretary, who seems to be one of the few Tory MPs with a moral compass.
I don't know who is worse. The moral degenerate who said it. Or the moral degenerates who even now are resolutely defending him.
Or the moral degenerates who defended Corbyn? Or who defended Brown during McBride's shitbaggery?
To make it clear: Johnson was in the wrong. However I would refer you to my post below: mistakes were made by the CPS and the police. What happened to those who made those critical mistakes?
(I think we all know the answer).
They really weren't. Read the background: the investigation found they things could probably have been done differently with possibly a different result. It wasn't a slam dunk. For instance the complainants said they weren't prepared to give evidence in court. The investigation said Well, if they had known about each other they might have been more confident. Really? Or they might have been confident enough to say they would, and then backed out at the last moment. This happens a lot.
So who in your view made what critical mistakes?
We'll never know, because the records were deleted.
And remember that this was just the end of a long chain of events where Saville got away with his behaviour, over decades.
You are, with respect, dealing in second hand smears.
The records were destroyed *in line with standard practice*
We do nonetheless know a lot because these events of 2009 were investigated and a report delivered in 2013. I bet you don't know without googling who did the investigation?
Your final paragraph is sublimely irrelevant. Do you think the CPS is in charge of the police?
Why was SKS fully involved in the Chris Huhne case but knew absolutely nothing about the Saville case?
Which case was more serious?
I answered that before you posted it. SKS was grandstanding over Huhne, so serve him right, but as someone else has said you'd expect decisions *to* prosecute to go further up the chain, than not to.
The first day of 'reset' has been a complete disaster I would say.
FFS get the letters in.
It reminds me a bit of Gordo, he just couldn't catch a break when he tried to relaunch, which is magnified when the media are ready to pick up every little thing. Obviously to some extent you make your own luck.
At least Brown was well meaning and trying. This PM is a mendacious cad and a scoundrel to boot who would lie to his own grandmother and probably sell her for two seconds of positive TV.
I have a very different memory of Brown being "well meaning". A man who consistently briefed and smear opponents both his own side and the opposition. Smear-gate blew up in his face, but apparently he had no idea the two blokes sitting right next to him in his office had been busy planning all of this. About as believable as Boris having no idea that he was going to a party.
I'm sorry, but are you seriously saying any of the silly games that Whelan and co played compares with this Trumpian level of absolute lying, smearing, hate inducing, mob rising bollocks?
Johnson is another order of magnitude.
Negative briefings from the Red Lion seem quaint by comparison.
The smears that Brown's henchmen were responsible for were pretty nasty, personal, aimed at politicians' wives and children and deeply misogynistic. They were every bit as nasty as this one and completely unjustified. They were not simply silly games and they shamed Labour just as the PM's behaviour shames his party.
It is arguable that Dolly Draper nearly destroyed the Labour party with the Red Rag nonsense.
If it had gone live, the lawsuits would have broken the bank. IIRC publishing untrue libellous statements that you *know* are untrue is even more serious - @PB lawyers?
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
It was, let's be blunt, a none too disguised nasty smear, designed to get people thinking exactly what this mob were shouting.
An utter disgrace.
Still, kudos to Julian Smith, former Chief Whip and Northern Ireland Secretary, who seems to be one of the few Tory MPs with a moral compass.
I don't know who is worse. The moral degenerate who said it. Or the moral degenerates who even now are resolutely defending him.
Or the moral degenerates who defended Corbyn? Or who defended Brown during McBride's shitbaggery?
To make it clear: Johnson was in the wrong. However I would refer you to my post below: mistakes were made by the CPS and the police. What happened to those who made those critical mistakes?
(I think we all know the answer).
Smears good/bad.
One man's smears are another man's truth. For instance, I have zero doubt that Corbyn is an anti-Semite, and there is evidence to back that assertion up. I'm guessing you would see that as a smear.
That's another thing about this mess; if it had been a Conservative in charge of the CPS at the time, many of those defending Starmer would be saying: "Now convenient the records have been destroyed! How unlikely is it that the head of the organisation was not told of an investigation into a very public figure?"
Exactly, as I pointed out the other day Starmer was fully involved in the Chris Huhne case, but apparently knew absolutely nothing about the Saville case.
If it had been a SeniorTory as head of the CPS at the time this happened, would Labour just accept his word that he knew nothing.
I would suspect that the general approach would be that all significant decisions TO prosecute would be passed upwards. Less so decisions not to prosecute. As a general rule what embarrasses the CPS is failed prosecutions. Huge expense of public money to earn “not guilty” verdicts. Not failure to prosecute for lack of evidence sufficient for conviction.
But that is the criticism of SKS as DPP. He was excessively cautious.
Now maybe that is the mindset of the CPS, but it should not be. There has been a long history of failure to prosecute child abusers (the North Wales Child abuse scandals, the various grooming gangs, and so on).
The same with rape. E.g., the failure to prosecute all of the Warboys cases leading to his attempted early release (another case where SKS hardly covered himself in glory).
And it is reasonable to ask why this is -- and it is reasonable to conclude that the mindset of CPS is part of the problem.
It seems to me perfectly fair that SKS's record is examined.
And it seems to me fair to conclude that SKS's record is pretty mixed.
But the people shouting at him didn't want to begin a thoughtful public debate about the institutional failings of the CPS. Most of them probably thought he was part of a conspiracy, because Johnson had repeated a conspiracy meme that mentioned him, from the internet.
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
It was, let's be blunt, a none too disguised nasty smear, designed to get people thinking exactly what this mob were shouting.
An utter disgrace.
Still, kudos to Julian Smith, former Chief Whip and Northern Ireland Secretary, who seems to be one of the few Tory MPs with a moral compass.
I don't know who is worse. The moral degenerate who said it. Or the moral degenerates who even now are resolutely defending him.
Or the moral degenerates who defended Corbyn? Or who defended Brown during McBride's shitbaggery?
To make it clear: Johnson was in the wrong. However I would refer you to my post below: mistakes were made by the CPS and the police. What happened to those who made those critical mistakes?
(I think we all know the answer).
They really weren't. Read the background: the investigation found they things could probably have been done differently with possibly a different result. It wasn't a slam dunk. For instance the complainants said they weren't prepared to give evidence in court. The investigation said Well, if they had known about each other they might have been more confident. Really? Or they might have been confident enough to say they would, and then backed out at the last moment. This happens a lot.
So who in your view made what critical mistakes?
We'll never know, because the records were deleted.
And remember that this was just the end of a long chain of events where Saville got away with his behaviour, over decades.
You are, with respect, dealing in second hand smears.
The records were destroyed *in line with standard practice*
We do nonetheless know a lot because these events of 2009 were investigated and a report delivered in 2013. I bet you don't know without googling who did the investigation?
Your final paragraph is sublimely irrelevant. Do you think the CPS is in charge of the police?
If it is standard practice for records to be destroyed in this case, then standard practice is wrong. The Saville case is important for a number of reasons, and it was always possible for it to explode once again.
My last paragraph was very important and relevant. This all matters, because the effects of these mistakes and missteps (at best) echo down the years and decades. So many people did not get justice.
No10 source: "The PM's tweet last night made it clear he condemns the mob. The fact is that Starmer himself apologised for what happened on his watch in 2013." I think this is what you call 'doubling down'.
After more than five hours of talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, there was little doubt Emmanuel Macron walked into the grizzly bear’s den — and he got mauled.
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1,661; Fieldwork: 1-2 February 2022)
I know you love Scotch sub-samples - that’s a stoning score for the Scottish Tories
What is evident, however, is how much Scons and Slab slither around and flip-flop in the relative rankings in those subsamples, from one poll to the next. Yesterday they were neck and neck.
It’s a sub sample. Tho I do wonder if a Sunak premiership might give the Scots Tories a boost
The one thing that doesn’t change is the roughly 50/50 split between Yes and No (again suggested by this poll). We are now 8 years from the last indyref. 6 years from Brexyref
Nothing has shifted. There will not be a new indyref until a dramatic shift DOES occur. The risks are too high for either side
Expect it in the 2030s, is my advice - once again
Of course a Sunak premiership would give the Scottish Tories a boost. Any of the front-runners would, except Gove. This is why they are so desperate to see the back of Johnson ASAP. Preferably before May.
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
It was, let's be blunt, a none too disguised nasty smear, designed to get people thinking exactly what this mob were shouting.
An utter disgrace.
Still, kudos to Julian Smith, former Chief Whip and Northern Ireland Secretary, who seems to be one of the few Tory MPs with a moral compass.
I don't know who is worse. The moral degenerate who said it. Or the moral degenerates who even now are resolutely defending him.
Or the moral degenerates who defended Corbyn? Or who defended Brown during McBride's shitbaggery?
To make it clear: Johnson was in the wrong. However I would refer you to my post below: mistakes were made by the CPS and the police. What happened to those who made those critical mistakes?
(I think we all know the answer).
They really weren't. Read the background: the investigation found they things could probably have been done differently with possibly a different result. It wasn't a slam dunk. For instance the complainants said they weren't prepared to give evidence in court. The investigation said Well, if they had known about each other they might have been more confident. Really? Or they might have been confident enough to say they would, and then backed out at the last moment. This happens a lot.
So who in your view made what critical mistakes?
We'll never know, because the records were deleted.
And remember that this was just the end of a long chain of events where Saville got away with his behaviour, over decades.
You are, with respect, dealing in second hand smears.
The records were destroyed *in line with standard practice*
We do nonetheless know a lot because these events of 2009 were investigated and a report delivered in 2013. I bet you don't know without googling who did the investigation?
Your final paragraph is sublimely irrelevant. Do you think the CPS is in charge of the police?
Why was SKS fully involved in the Chris Huhne case but knew absolutely nothing about the Saville case?
Which case was more serious?
The Huhne case was far more political
Wouldn't that suggest he should have stayed further away from it?
The Heathrow express takes you to Paddington in 15 mins. And that is central london. Compare that with, say, JFK or LAX. There are also bus, tube and cab links. And now the Liz Line will make it even more accessible
Heathrow Express's days are numbered once Crossrail is up and running. XR will be a little bit slower to Paddington (24 vs 15) but Paddington is out in the sticks - most Heathrow passengers will connect into XR at TCR, Farringdon or Liverpool Street. And Heathrow Express is an enormous waste of capacity on the Great Western fast tracks.
The Heathrow Express contract is up for renewal in 2023. My suspicion is that Crossrail will have taken so many of its passengers that it'll be downgraded to a half-hourly service and possibly shunted onto the slow tracks.
Not to mention that HEX is the most expensive train journey in the world, by time and distance.
Ripping off visitors for a train or taxi as soon as they arrive, doesn’t help London’s reputation.
It's one of the few trains out there where the price of the ticket actually pays for the whole operation. As opposed to being massively subsidised.
The Heathrow Express has a contract guaranteeing access to the track necessary for the advertised time. When John Prescott was in charge of transport, he wanted them de-prioritised, but couldn't do it.
Indeed. The "advertised time" ends next year, by which time Crossrail will be fully established.
The Savile slur was not the first time the PM has wrongly smeared people doing their job. Nor the first time the Home Secretary has done so. Nor the first time the Attorney-General has remained quiet. Nor the first time the PM and the Home Secretary have been warned or criticised about what they have said.
It was, let's be blunt, a none too disguised nasty smear, designed to get people thinking exactly what this mob were shouting.
An utter disgrace.
Still, kudos to Julian Smith, former Chief Whip and Northern Ireland Secretary, who seems to be one of the few Tory MPs with a moral compass.
I don't know who is worse. The moral degenerate who said it. Or the moral degenerates who even now are resolutely defending him.
Or the moral degenerates who defended Corbyn? Or who defended Brown during McBride's shitbaggery?
To make it clear: Johnson was in the wrong. However I would refer you to my post below: mistakes were made by the CPS and the police. What happened to those who made those critical mistakes?
(I think we all know the answer).
They really weren't. Read the background: the investigation found they things could probably have been done differently with possibly a different result. It wasn't a slam dunk. For instance the complainants said they weren't prepared to give evidence in court. The investigation said Well, if they had known about each other they might have been more confident. Really? Or they might have been confident enough to say they would, and then backed out at the last moment. This happens a lot.
So who in your view made what critical mistakes?
We'll never know, because the records were deleted.
And remember that this was just the end of a long chain of events where Saville got away with his behaviour, over decades.
You are, with respect, dealing in second hand smears.
The records were destroyed *in line with standard practice*
We do nonetheless know a lot because these events of 2009 were investigated and a report delivered in 2013. I bet you don't know without googling who did the investigation?
Your final paragraph is sublimely irrelevant. Do you think the CPS is in charge of the police?
Why was SKS fully involved in the Chris Huhne case but knew absolutely nothing about the Saville case?
Which case was more serious?
The Huhne case was far more political
A point to which the CPS should be blind. The rules are very clear, you don't do stuff which could prejudice potential jurors. He could have done a one line press release, instead he has a presser and all the jurors think Oooh look this important big ass lawyer is on national TV saying he thinks there's enough evidence to prosecute, no smoke without fire.
Comments
As you were
I waited for the question to him “so actually if these massive profits are happening then we will automatically be getting a “windfall tax” on the increase on top of the uplift to pensions and BP having more money to invest in green energy development”.
But it never came.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1490967055079964673
Lab 62%
Con 19%
LD 10%
Rest of South:
Con 37%
Lab 33%
LD 13%
Midlands and Wales:
Lab 40%
Con 37%
LD 10%
North:
Lab 49%
Con 31%
Scotland:
SNP 46%
Con 27%
Lab 19%
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1,661; Fieldwork: 1-2 February 2022)
That's the story.
A prominent leadership contender had a birthday party at her grace and favour home for someone who will be important in the coming leadership election
How the government plays it is going to be interesting, they need to be careful of someone who can become as much of a thorn in their side over this, as Farage was over the EU. Hell, it might even be Farage himself again, opposing the “Green Crap” ( (c) David Cameron) from the right.
Problem occurs if Johnson survives. We’re not there yet.
Nuclear is the most naturally occurring and greenest form of energy in the universe.*
*Providing you don't let it leak.
The one thing that doesn’t change is the roughly 50/50 split between Yes and No (again suggested by this poll). We are now 8 years from the last indyref. 6 years from Brexyref
Nothing has shifted. There will not be a new indyref until a dramatic shift DOES occur. The risks are too high for either side
Expect it in the 2030s, is my advice - once again
Reminded me of that Paxman/Howard interview.
On PM 'clarification': “It’s possible that his words could have been misconstrued."
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1490970844512022528
This is the most non-story of all non-stories. There are certainly people who are trying to stymie a Liz Truss leadership bid, but they have remarkably little to work with.
We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute vile … banana republic, vile, nasty, Etonian … piece of scum,” she said at the event, before adding that she had “held back a little”.
Heathrow itself is just a bit of a mess. Boris was probably right that we needed a brand new airport on the other side of town. Would have been amazing but ridiculously expensive.
https://www.ft.com/content/7669283d-4ae4-4b81-8663-5864a0ef5dcf
So who in your view made what critical mistakes?
Be careful what you wish for, Bozo.
In Scotland, I wonder if the Tory leadership's separation from Johnson is doing them some good, both directly because voters tend to agree and indirectly because it shows they're not puppets of London.
And remember that this was just the end of a long chain of events where Saville got away with his behaviour, over decades.
Sure, it’s not Changi. But nowhere is. Sure, if you were starting from scratch you wouldn’t do it this way
But it is, for a start, almost perfectly located - this is the nation’s main airport as well as London’s. You could maybe argue that it would be slightly better if it was north of london - ie where Luton is - but it is still highly accessible for most of the UK. Near the M25. Off the M4. Very close to central london (unlike somewhere such as KL). Boris airport in the isle of Sheppey wouid have been stupidly remote for 80% of the UK
With its refurbs the terminals now sparkle - T3 and T5 are great (T5 has been voted the best terminal in the world)
The Heathrow express takes you to Paddington in 15 mins. And that is central london. Compare that with, say, JFK or LAX. There are also bus, tube and cab links. And now the Liz Line will make it even more accessible
It’s a great airport despite its legacy problems. The difficulty of expansion is the issue for the future
https://twitter.com/airlivenet/status/1490974667103952898?s=20&t=MrzmnY6a1q7SBtIx7rToXg
The same process which is witnessed across human societies and throughout history. No reason Scotland is immune. The stasis is likely to endure
Try that one in court. Sorry m'lud but X murdered someone so I thought it was ok if I did also.
PS At least X apologised for his mass murder (whether he meant it or not), but you are ok with your mass murderer getting off even if he wasn't, or couldn't even be arsed to pretend to be sorry.
Worth trying an analogy and see if it holds up.
Do it too much, and it loses its shock value.
Keep doing it enough and people start to get supicious about where the cats are coming from and why none of them are alive.
Boris reached Stage 2 some time ago, and now seems to be entering Stage 3.
https://www.politico.eu/article/canada-probes-uk-over-hormone-beef-ban-as-london-eyes-trade-pact/
Labour trade spokesman @NickTorfaen said discussion showed the government was “considering dropping animal welfare and food standards and allowing hormone-treated beef into U.K. markets.”
When it’s asked again the SNP will not get away with a loaded question.
I agree there are probably around a third firmly in either camp, with the final third floating between the two. Hence last week’s desperate lying over pensions and contradicting their own 2014 prospectus.
Paddington is not at all central. I love it and it's great but it's out on the west of London and a bit of a faff to reach from the centre.
Dubai is a wonderful airport but so is Abu Dhabi now. Most people are really critical of T5. I actually happen not to be but most of my traveller friends, including pilots, think it's by now tired and grotty. I can see their point tbh. It's been left far, far, behind.
KLIA to Sentral Station takes 28 minutes so I've no idea what you're on about and the motorway links are much better.
Which leads me to the real Achilles heel of LHR: the Heathrow Spur. The road system around and into Heathrow is a complete mess and frequently jams. I grant you that JFK and LAX are worse but, bloody hell, if you're comparing Britain with America on airports (or airlines) then you have set the bar extremely low. Part of the problem is that the M25 and M4 simply cannot hold the capacity and that junction 15 is a godawful mess. I assume you never use it from your comments.
It's to the East we should look for the great airports of the world. I can list you half a dozen finer airports and better transport infrastructure. Extend that to the middle east and we're approaching a dozen. Just way way better: cleaner, slicker, faster.
The records were destroyed *in line with standard practice*
We do nonetheless know a lot because these events of 2009 were investigated and a report delivered in 2013. I bet you don't know without googling who did the investigation?
Your final paragraph is sublimely irrelevant. Do you think the CPS is in charge of the police?
If he walks out and it doesn’t bring down Boris then he knows Boris will have a free hand to put in a yes man at the treasury (and he’s going to select his yes man more carefully this time I imagine…) and undo any “sound money” approach.
If he walks and brings down Boris then there is no guarantee he will replace Boris so again runs the risk that his “sound money” attitude might be ignored as a new leader turns on the taps to try and ensure a win at next election.
So if you are a man of principle (which I believe he is) then what do you do, walk away and risk a disaster or stay and manage it as best you can and the. If things change fundamentally re Boris then hopefully you get the gig and carry on?
It’s maybe like being on a ship where the Captain is pissed and you have the opportunity to jump ship at a port stop off but you know if you do then you were the only one who was fixing the captain’s navigation errors and so if you leave there is a higher chance the ship hits the rocks and everyone dies.
You can stay and try and stop it and hope that the captain gets replaced or jump ship and save yourself.
An absolutely stunning airport. A thousand times better than Heathrow.
The Heathrow Express contract is up for renewal in 2023. My suspicion is that Crossrail will have taken so many of its passengers that it'll be downgraded to a half-hourly service and possibly shunted onto the slow tracks.
https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-russia-welcomes-emmanuel-macron-france-into-his-lair-kremlin-ukraine/
My only reservation on that is a timing issue that @tlg86 pointed out in a discussion some days ago. As that has never resurfaced I assume I was either incorrect in reporting what was said or what was said was wrong and irrelevant or more complicated than that.
https://www.worldairportawards.com/worlds-top-100-airports-2021/https://www.worldairportawards.com/the-worlds-top-10-airports-of-2021/
Doha Hamad
Tokyo Haneda
Singapore Changi
Seoul Incheon
Tokyo Narita
Munich
Zurich
London Heathrow
Kansai
Hong Kong
Another depressing morning in politics
I have no doubt the mob yesterday were demonstrating about vaccines and Assange but on seeing Starmer latched onto the Savile comment
It is just distasteful but I have decided to stop beating myself up over conservative mps lack of action, for my own peace of mind
If they cannot take the right action then they deserve to go into opposition for a very long time
https://getbybus.com/en/blog/best-airports-in-the-world/
Ripping off visitors for a train or taxi as soon as they arrive, doesn’t help London’s reputation.
Your words were "If Johnson had been "attacked" for his lying about parties during lockdown that would have been fully justified, it's true. Starmer being "attacked" over the slurs re Savile is not justified, it's not true. Therein lies the difference, there is no equivalence."
That reads as though if that mob had attacked Johnson and were calling out his drinks parties, that would have been ok. So your point implies that it is not the "attacking" that it is the problem but whether it's justified. I'd argue that is not a great view since justification is often in the eye of the beholder.
The Heathrow Express has a contract guaranteeing access to the track necessary for the advertised time. When John Prescott was in charge of transport, he wanted them de-prioritised, but couldn't do it.
https://www.farandwide.com/s/best-airports-world-5683adff3baa4ed3
Doha top again.
Travel and Leisure don't have it in their top 10:
https://www.travelandleisure.com/worlds-best/airports-international
Truth is that Heathrow is a tired airport. T5 being an example. And before you ask, Leon, I was there a few weeks ago.
Now maybe that is the mindset of the CPS, but it should not be. There has been a long history of failure to prosecute child abusers (the North Wales Child abuse scandals, the various grooming gangs, and so on).
The same with rape. E.g., the failure to prosecute all of the Warboys cases leading to his attempted early release (another case where SKS hardly covered himself in glory).
And it is reasonable to ask why this is -- and it is reasonable to conclude that the mindset of CPS is part of the problem.
It seems to me perfectly fair that SKS's record is examined.
And it seems to me fair to conclude that SKS's record is pretty mixed.
Which case was more serious?
Before I get accused of being a fan of Starmer or an anti semite I don't think he is a valiant hero and I am not a fan of his anti Jewish crusade.
In the same programme they did explain how the profits are invested in UK pensions and that the industry last year made less than one billion and that the enormous cost of transitioning to green energy requires sustained profit and investments
If it had gone live, the lawsuits would have broken the bank. IIRC publishing untrue libellous statements that you *know* are untrue is even more serious - @PB lawyers?
My last paragraph was very important and relevant. This all matters, because the effects of these mistakes and missteps (at best) echo down the years and decades. So many people did not get justice.
I think this is what you call 'doubling down'.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-keir-starmer-jimmy-savile_uk_62022924e4b09170e9d5962e
So much for Macron de-escalating the issue and of course this will inflame Turkey