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
I just can't believe that within the CPS there is not a system in place that when an incredibly famous person is being accused of a terrible crime and it is in front of the CPS, that that the DPP is not informed of it. The DPP is the public face of the CPS and he would need to know.
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.
I'm not responding to the above argument in particular but to make a related point. I think @MrEd has a point about if a Tory walks down the street and gets verbally and even physically attacked by a mob. In fact I think it is fair to say that Tories are very likely to get much worse hassle than others. Most mobs are either nutters, left wingers or extreme right wingers and extreme right wingers are a very small minority indeed.
Johnson's issue is however that he has said something that the mob are already focused on. So no Johnson didn't cause the problem of the mob, but he exacerbates it and legitimises it in the very way Trump does. It is the first time he has done this and I suspect he really regrets it now (unlike Trump) and probably didn't think this backlash would happen.
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?
Then, probably no. It would need the Head Honcho to be involved.
(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.
Sunak like Boris would refuse indyref2. However the best PM numbers from RedfieldWilton yesterday suggested that while Starmer Labour would win most seats against a Johnson led Tories and not need the SNP, a Sunak led Tories would see the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament so Starmer would need the SNP.
The SNP would demand indyref2 plus devomax of course to make Starmer PM. So ironically a Sunak premiership makes indyref2 more likely
(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.
Spot on with your second paragraph Nick. Douglas Ross and his entire Holyrood team played an absolute blinder. Unanimously calling for Johnson to resign. It is definitely buoying them. For now…
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 examine his record, or begin a thoughtful public debate about the institutional failings of the CPS. Many of them probably think he is part of a conspiracy, because Johnson repeated a conspiracy meme from the internet.
I think allegations of permitting/consorting with child abusers are absolutely standard in modern politics.
Did Tom Watson ever apologize for any of his allegations? Were any of them ever shown to be true?
Remember, Watson spoke of “clear intelligence suggesting a powerful pedophile network linked to parliament and number 10.”
Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, the Lolita Express. Wink-wink. Joe Biden and his creepy behaviour towards young girls and women, nudge, nudge.
It is absolutely standard. Boris is just using a well-worn tactic of both the right and left.
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.
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. He just chants the same mantra every time he appears
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
The Huhne case was less toxic. The Svaille case had all kind of danger signs around it....
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.
That is true and it's fair to criticise what BJ said but would that should not mean is that SKS' record as DPP is suddenly verboten when it comes to discussion. After all, part of the case his supporters make is that he had a "proper" job before he became a MP. So it is only fair to examine that record, especially as it could give an insight into how he would operate as PM. I suspect that is the real goal of BJ here i.e. to get people to look at his whole track record because, as was said by another poster, his track record was mixed regardless of Saville.
Unless Bangalore is completely different to the Bangalore airport I visited 4 years ago I just don't believe that survey.
No reason not to believe it, it is openly based mostly on Google reviews. But google reviews depend heavily on user expectations, which will be very different in Bangalore, Bogata and Birmingham, so just don't expect the rankings to be a comparator of quality. Also would not be surprised if Googles approach to paid for reviews vary by location.
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
SKS was DPP between 2008 and 2013. In 2013 a report by Alison Levitt QC said that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Savile in 2009, 2 years before he died. SKS apologised as DPP for the failure of his organisation to carry out that prosecution and sought to bring in reforms where greater credence was given to the statements of alleged victims, a policy that subsequently caused its own problems.
Savile had got away with being a peodophile for at least most, possibly all, of his adult life. To suggest that 2009 was the only opportunity to bring that monster to justice is completely ridiculous but, on the basis of their own report, that last opportunity was missed.
Would the DPP of the day have been consulted about such a high profile prosecution? I don't know. Would he have made the call to prosecute or not? Vanishingly unlikely. Was the decision made in the context of the then policies of the DPP who had been in office a year? Yes. Is that fair game in the rough and tumble of politics? Why not?
Boris acknowledged that he had no evidence that SKS was involved personally in any of the decisions. The records no longer exist. But he was captain of the ship at the time and he set the policies which resulted in the decision that was made. If the DPP was a Minister he would have been responsible for what happened on his watch in his department. It is a moot point whether a public servant, as SKS then was, should be held to the same standard.
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.
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.
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 examine his record, or begin a thoughtful public debate about the institutional failings of the CPS. Many of them probably think he is part of a conspiracy, because Johnson repeated a conspiracy meme from the internet.
I think allegations of permitting/consorting with child abusers are absolutely standard in modern politics.
Did Tom Watson ever apologize for any of his allegations? Were any of them ever shown to be true?
Remember, Watson spoke of “clear intelligence suggesting a powerful pedophile network linked to parliament and number 10.”
Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, the Lolita Express. Wink-wink. Joe Biden and his creepy behaviour towards young girls and women, nudge, nudge.
It is absolutely standard. Boris is just using a well-worn tactic of both the right and left.
There's really nothing standard about it at all.
Nothing like that has ever been used by one party leader against another as a rhetorical tactic in the UK. The only part of the West were something comparable has happened is Trump's US, where parts of the Republican Party, and Trump himself, acquiesced with the lunatic idea that Biden was at the head of an international conspiracy of protecting paedophiles. That's where this tactic, and the particular meme it uses, comes from.
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.
In that scenario what Sunak does is a deal with Liz Truss. He agrees to be her Chancellor, in return for a sound money policy, and the two of them work to ensure they have the necessary votes to defeat Johnson in the vote of no confidence, or enough of the Cabinet to force a resignation without one.
You plan for success and leave nothing for chance.
QED. It’s in the top ten in the world. That is not a “dog’s breakfast”. And for a very old airport in a very old big and grand world city that is highly impressive
No sign of Paris, or JFK, or Frankfurt, or Schiphol
Heathrow is now an excellent airport, but of course it could be improved. You are right about the roads being a bit of a mess, for a start
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
Can I second that?
It is really good to see the Return of @TheJezziah
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.
I'm not responding to the above argument in particular but to make a related point. I think @MrEd has a point about if a Tory walks down the street and gets verbally and even physically attacked by a mob. In fact I think it is fair to say that Tories are very likely to get much worse hassle than others. Most mobs are either nutters, left wingers or extreme right wingers and extreme right wingers are a very small minority indeed.
Johnson's issue is however that he has said something that the mob are already focused on. So no Johnson didn't cause the problem of the mob, but he exacerbates it and legitimises it in the very way Trump does. It is the first time he has done this and I suspect he really regrets it now (unlike Trump) and probably didn't think this backlash would happen.
That is a fair point but I don't think BJ will regret it - look at the discussion on here, we are all back to talking about SKS' record as DPP, which he was involved in or not, whether he should have taken more action etc. Now, I don't know SKS but my guess is that he probably doesn't want to discuss that part of his career so much because of the ambiguities involved.
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.
1. You misunderstand the process
2. You are corrected
3. You attack the process
I would almost guarantee that you have at some stage said approvingly on these boards that English justice = innocent till proven guilty, and that applies across the board. The rule is not, not definitively guilty, but probably a wrong 'un if the CPS have noticed him, so we will keep this prejudicial material indefinitely.
Again, your last paragraph is irrelevant. The question is how much justice would a *failed* prosecution have given anyone? How do you think you prosecute someone when your witnesses decline to give evidence against them?
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.
I'm not responding to the above argument in particular but to make a related point. I think @MrEd has a point about if a Tory walks down the street and gets verbally and even physically attacked by a mob. In fact I think it is fair to say that Tories are very likely to get much worse hassle than others. Most mobs are either nutters, left wingers or extreme right wingers and extreme right wingers are a very small minority indeed.
Johnson's issue is however that he has said something that the mob are already focused on. So no Johnson didn't cause the problem of the mob, but he exacerbates it and legitimises it in the very way Trump does. It is the first time he has done this and I suspect he really regrets it now (unlike Trump) and probably didn't think this backlash would happen.
The amount of discussion on here and in the media is only serving to bring Savile and Starmer's role to the fore, and the danger for Starmer is many who will not have known about his role will start asking questions that could, rightly or wrongly, follow him all the way to GE24
Jimmy Saville got away with his crimes; and AFAIAA only his driver was ever jailed. The question is how and why Saville got away with it. The investigation criticised both the police and the CPS.
So who was to blame for those mistakes ('errors of judgement'), and did they get penalised for those mistakes? Or was it just another case of moving on, lessons unlearned?
If you’re going down that line, then an awful lot of people at the BBC and various charities/hospitals made profound errors, long before the matter came before the police or prosecutors. Can’t recall any of them fessing up. Should Margaret Thatcher take the blame? She was ultimately responsible for the state while Savile was sheltering under its wings.
Yes, there were a series of profound errors by all sorts of people. That does not excuse the fact that the final opportunity to get something like justice was missed.
Ask yourself why and when the prime minister brought up the slur. It was nothing to do with justice or with concern for Savile’s victims. It was all to do with his own selfish interests.
There are correct ways to criticise the CPS. Johnson chose another path.
Yes a throw away jibe when defending himself against charges of breaking criminal law. Not exactly a solemn process of truth discovery for the benefit of Savile’s victims is it. Can’t understand why one or two here are defending it.
Exactly. He was having a bad session and grabbed at it more in desperation than malice.
Of course he should have retracted and apologised immediately, but ...it's Boris, innit.
That's the other striking thing.
The Starmer-Saville allegations have been around in the background for a while. They're disgraceful but potent with a certain sort of voter. Like chemical weapons, they shouldn't be used.
But if you are going to deploy those slurs, do it at a time that's effective- just before polling day. Preferably in a way with plausible deniability.
Instead, BoJo said them himself and spaffed them away on a PMQs in mid-term. He used them to lash out because he felt he was losing.
It's like the heat now, pay much later scheme. Some political benefit now but increased pain in the actual election year.
Idiot.
Do you really think they were planning on saving it until the GE? Disgraceful if true. The next GE looks like being the dirtiest ever if Britain Trump is still in office.
Have borrowed Mrs RP's laptop to try out Windows 11. Already finding it a pain in the bum after 18 months of Chrome OS simplicity. Why is everything such a faff? I'm used to things just working, now I have to mess about configuring things because the MS default settings are bonkers? Grrrr.
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.
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
Can I second that?
It is really good to see the Return of @TheJezziah
It is. We need people on here who support every party, so a supporter of the coming Peace and Justice (Marxist Leninist) Party will be welcome.
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.
"Uprooting Kremlin-linked oligarchs will be a challenge given the close ties between Russian money and the United Kingdom’s ruling conservative party, the press, and its real estate and financial industry. The United States should propose creating the working group in part to prod stronger action from the U.K. government."
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
I just can't believe that within the CPS there is not a system in place that when an incredibly famous person is being accused of a terrible crime and it is in front of the CPS, that that the DPP is not informed of it. The DPP is the public face of the CPS and he would need to know.
Indeed. Any CPS decision that’s likely to lead the Six O’Clock News if it goes one way or the other, should be on the DPP’s desk.
Or was it the culture that the DPP didn’t want to know about these things, so they could plausibly deny knowledge of them at a later date?
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
I just can't believe that within the CPS there is not a system in place that when an incredibly famous person is being accused of a terrible crime and it is in front of the CPS, that that the DPP is not informed of it. The DPP is the public face of the CPS and he would need to know.
Again I don't know the details but there is a whole lot of stuff on this about the regional independence of the CPS and one of the issues was that rather than there being a number of known complaints that could be tied together, there were a number of individual complaints, each individually dismissed because of lack of corroborating evidence because the police were unaware of the other cases. Starmer was apparently instrumental in resolving that issue, specifically because of child abuse cases.
If you are really interested in this why don't you go and find out the facts and post that here rather than speculating wildly when the information is out there for you to read.
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 examine his record, or begin a thoughtful public debate about the institutional failings of the CPS. Many of them probably think he is part of a conspiracy, because Johnson repeated a conspiracy meme from the internet.
I think allegations of permitting/consorting with child abusers are absolutely standard in modern politics.
Did Tom Watson ever apologize for any of his allegations? Were any of them ever shown to be true?
Remember, Watson spoke of “clear intelligence suggesting a powerful pedophile network linked to parliament and number 10.”
Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, the Lolita Express. Wink-wink. Joe Biden and his creepy behaviour towards young girls and women, nudge, nudge.
It is absolutely standard. Boris is just using a well-worn tactic of both the right and left.
There's really nothing standard about it at all.
Nothing like that has ever been used by one party leader against another as a rhetorical tactic in the UK. The only part of the West were something comparable has happened is Trump's US, where parts of the Republican Party, and Trump himself, gave tacit support to the idea that Biden was at the head of an international conspiracy of protecting paedophiles. That's where this tactic, and the particular meme it uses, comes from.
I am not sure I agree. This tactic is very old.
LBJ: "‘I know it’s not true, but let’s make the sonofabitch deny 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.
My guess is that the killer for the Heathrow Express is not (so much) time or money - many travellers on expenses etc - but that Crossrail will offer direct trains to more useful destinations.
When you consider getting from Paddington to the next destination - 10 minutes can easily be lost in changing to another transport mode.
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.
Starmer's anti jewish crusade?
I think Jezziah may mean the report that a lot of those threatened with expulsion are in fact Jewish. One used to be a friend of my wife, who is a Jewish supporter, or ex-supporter possibly now I think, as I've lost track, of Corbyn.
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
I just can't believe that within the CPS there is not a system in place that when an incredibly famous person is being accused of a terrible crime and it is in front of the CPS, that that the DPP is not informed of it. The DPP is the public face of the CPS and he would need to know.
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
I just can't believe that within the CPS there is not a system in place that when an incredibly famous person is being accused of a terrible crime and it is in front of the CPS, that that the DPP is not informed of it. The DPP is the public face of the CPS and he would need to know.
Again I don't know the details but there is a whole lot of stuff on this about the regional independence of the CPS and one of the issues was that rather than there being a number of known complaints that could be tied together, there were a number of individual complaints, each individually dismissed because of lack of corroborating evidence because the police were unaware of the other cases. Starmer was apparently instrumental in resolving that issue, specifically because of child abuse cases.
If you are really interested in this why don't you go and find out the facts and post that here rather than speculating wildly when the information is out there for you to read.
Im not speculating wildly, Im just comparing the difference in handling between the Chris Huhne case which although he was a MP was a minor offence and the Saville case where he was accused of terrible crimes.
I must say, I don’t recall any of those inspirational speeches about ‘freedom from unelected Brussels bureaucrats’ mentioning lower car safety standards.
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.
I'm not responding to the above argument in particular but to make a related point. I think @MrEd has a point about if a Tory walks down the street and gets verbally and even physically attacked by a mob. In fact I think it is fair to say that Tories are very likely to get much worse hassle than others. Most mobs are either nutters, left wingers or extreme right wingers and extreme right wingers are a very small minority indeed.
Johnson's issue is however that he has said something that the mob are already focused on. So no Johnson didn't cause the problem of the mob, but he exacerbates it and legitimises it in the very way Trump does. It is the first time he has done this and I suspect he really regrets it now (unlike Trump) and probably didn't think this backlash would happen.
That is a fair point but I don't think BJ will regret it - look at the discussion on here, we are all back to talking about SKS' record as DPP, which he was involved in or not, whether he should have taken more action etc. Now, I don't know SKS but my guess is that he probably doesn't want to discuss that part of his career so much because of the ambiguities involved.
You might be right. I don't know. Although I disapprove it would have been better saved up for a GE in my opinion. I also suspect Boris was just looking to win points at PMQs. I can't imagine he thought all this would happen. Also it could have generated more letters.
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.
1. You misunderstand the process
2. You are corrected
3. You attack the process
I would almost guarantee that you have at some stage said approvingly on these boards that English justice = innocent till proven guilty, and that applies across the board. The rule is not, not definitively guilty, but probably a wrong 'un if the CPS have noticed him, so we will keep this prejudicial material indefinitely.
Again, your last paragraph is irrelevant. The question is how much justice would a *failed* prosecution have given anyone? How do you think you prosecute someone when your witnesses decline to give evidence against them?
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.
Starmer's anti jewish crusade?
In terms of kicking Jewish people out the Labour party Starmer is a bit of a record breaker.
Here is an example of one he was trying to kick out but got a bit scared when the need emerged to actually produce evidence beyond Argh! Corbyn! Anti Semite!
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.
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
Can I second that?
It is really good to see the Return of @TheJezziah
It is. We need people on here who support every party, so a supporter of the coming Peace and Justice (Marxist Leninist) Party will be welcome.
I must say, I don’t recall any of those inspirational speeches about ‘freedom from unelected Brussels bureaucrats’ mentioning lower car safety standards.
Don't over-egg. It's not 'more, etc'. It's not reducing further.
And the freedom rubbish was directed at those who can exploit situations for personal, or company, profit. Not ordinary folk, although they might have been led to think that!
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
I loathe the man so much I may vote Tory to try to play my small part in stopping him.
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
I just can't believe that within the CPS there is not a system in place that when an incredibly famous person is being accused of a terrible crime and it is in front of the CPS, that that the DPP is not informed of it. The DPP is the public face of the CPS and he would need to know.
Again I don't know the details but there is a whole lot of stuff on this about the regional independence of the CPS and one of the issues was that rather than there being a number of known complaints that could be tied together, there were a number of individual complaints, each individually dismissed because of lack of corroborating evidence because the police were unaware of the other cases. Starmer was apparently instrumental in resolving that issue, specifically because of child abuse cases.
If you are really interested in this why don't you go and find out the facts and post that here rather than speculating wildly when the information is out there for you to read.
Im not speculating wildly, Im just comparing the difference in handling between the Chris Huhne case which although he was a MP was a minor offence and the Saville case where he was accused of terrible crimes.
You are because the information on what happened in the Saville case is all out there to read. You are speculating that Starmer must of known because he knew about Huhne. Boris, nor none of the people supporting him, have even suggested that, but you are flying that kite.
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
I loathe the man so much I may vote Tory to try to play my small part in stopping him.
What is there to 'loathe' about Starmer? Corbyn, yes, Johnson, yes, but Starmer?
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.
1. You misunderstand the process
2. You are corrected
3. You attack the process
I would almost guarantee that you have at some stage said approvingly on these boards that English justice = innocent till proven guilty, and that applies across the board. The rule is not, not definitively guilty, but probably a wrong 'un if the CPS have noticed him, so we will keep this prejudicial material indefinitely.
Again, your last paragraph is irrelevant. The question is how much justice would a *failed* prosecution have given anyone? How do you think you prosecute someone when your witnesses decline to give evidence against them?
You are being fairly incoherent.
I am really not. But if I am incoherent stop reading me, and go and read some of the ample evidence freely available on the internet about all this, rather than commentate on your own wildly inaccurate guesses?
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.
Sky just announced Russia is sending 6 warships to the Black Sea
So much for Macron de-escalating the issue and of course this will inflame Turkey
Not a bad move by Putin - when you are in negotiations it’s probably quite handy to pull out some warships to reinforce your position/point to remind the other side who is holding what cards.
“You better get a move on Emmanuel and find a nice solution for me as I’m still going with Plan A until you get me something I want.”
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
I loathe the man so much I may vote Tory to try to play my small part in stopping him.
What is there to 'loathe' about Starmer? Corbyn, yes, Johnson, yes, but Starmer?
Plenty of the hard right loathed Cameron, no surprise plenty of the hard left loathe Starmer
I must say, I don’t recall any of those inspirational speeches about ‘freedom from unelected Brussels bureaucrats’ mentioning lower car safety standards.
Absolutely. One huge Brexit benefit was to be able to turn down the next lot of costly EU regulation on businesses.
Many of the smaller, specialist manufacturers of cars in the UK would have been adversely affected by these new standards, requiring extensive investment.
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
I just can't believe that within the CPS there is not a system in place that when an incredibly famous person is being accused of a terrible crime and it is in front of the CPS, that that the DPP is not informed of it. The DPP is the public face of the CPS and he would need to know.
Are you referring to Huhne or Saville?
Any case where a famous person is involved and they are accused of a terrible crime, and the evidence is in front of the CPS.
As the DPP what SKS did in the Chris Huhne case is exactly what I would expect him to do, although it was a minor offence, a famous person was involved so he made a statement about it. Why was he informed about the Chris Huhne case and not the Saville case ?
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.
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 answer is obvious. Chris Huhne had just had a tremendous row in Cabinet with George Osborne - sufficiently well reported at the time for me to have read about it. That was not the only instance of a Lib Dem colleague falling out with a top Tory, or overshadowing him in the public gaze, only to have some misdemeanour exposed in the media.
I am reminded of this when I read of the dirty tricked that were threatened to be used against Conservative MPs who have dared to fall out with Boris Johnson recently.
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.
You are implying that I am in favour of physical attacks on MPs, I'm not. I am using attacked in the broader sense (hence the inverted commas")
If you can see any difference in someone being "attacked" for something that is true and being "attacked" for something that isn't true then so be it.
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
I loathe the man so much I may vote Tory to try to play my small part in stopping him.
Thanks Jezziah.
That does help explain how the Conservatives are maintaining a level of support in excess of 30% in most opinion polls.
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
I loathe the man so much I may vote Tory to try to play my small part in stopping him.
What is there to 'loathe' about Starmer? Corbyn, yes, Johnson, yes, but Starmer?
Plenty of the hard right loathed Cameron, no surprise plenty of the hard left loathe Starmer
TBH, I found, and still find it difficult to 'loathe' Cameron. Didn't like him, or what he stood for, or much of what he and his Government did, but 'loathe'? That's a very different emotion.
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
SKS was DPP between 2008 and 2013. In 2013 a report by Alison Levitt QC said that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Savile in 2009, 2 years before he died. SKS apologised as DPP for the failure of his organisation to carry out that prosecution and sought to bring in reforms where greater credence was given to the statements of alleged victims, a policy that subsequently caused its own problems.
Savile had got away with being a peodophile for at least most, possibly all, of his adult life. To suggest that 2009 was the only opportunity to bring that monster to justice is completely ridiculous but, on the basis of their own report, that last opportunity was missed.
Would the DPP of the day have been consulted about such a high profile prosecution? I don't know. Would he have made the call to prosecute or not? Vanishingly unlikely. Was the decision made in the context of the then policies of the DPP who had been in office a year? Yes. Is that fair game in the rough and tumble of politics? Why not?
Boris acknowledged that he had no evidence that SKS was involved personally in any of the decisions. The records no longer exist. But he was captain of the ship at the time and he set the policies which resulted in the decision that was made. If the DPP was a Minister he would have been responsible for what happened on his watch in his department. It is a moot point whether a public servant, as SKS then was, should be held to the same standard.
I think there are a number of issues being conflated here.
1. Is Starmer's record as DPP a legitimate subject for scrutiny? Yes, of course. But why was this being raised in the context of the PM's responsibility for compliance with Covid regulations and not misleading the Commons? It was pure deflection.
2. Starmer has already taken responsibility for the CPS's failings in relation to Savile and apologised. So what point are Boris and chums trying to make? It's not that he - as head of the organisation- should take responsibility- because he's already done that. Rather, the implication is that he was somehow using his position as DPP to protect Savile. Or turn a blind eye to what he was up to. That's the smeary sub-text of what the PM said. And it is what is being picked up by those in the crowd yesterday and elsewhere. No amount of contortion about Starmer not being personally responsible ...blah ... blah .... which all these MPs are now using takes away from the fact that this is what will likely be remembered by those not aware of the details of what in fact happened.
3. It's also foolish if you're genuinely concerned about the CPS's record, especially in relation to sexual offences (don't think the PM is, IMO). There are real criticisms to be made about the CPS's record and about how sexual offences are investigated and prosecuted. I covered some of these in my recent header. But you'd have to be pretty naive to think that the PM gives a monkeys about any of that or the criminal justice system in general. The effect of this is that if anyone does look critically at the CPS's record - or Starmer's - no-one will listen.
4. One decision which does deserve scrutiny is Starmer's decision to prosecute journalists under some very antiquated laws. These were eventually thrown out by the courts and the decisions severely criticised. This matters because it is - possibly - an indication of Starmer's attitude to freedom of the press and free expression, rights which are constantly under attack by politicians of all sides, Labour included. Concerns have been expressed about the Online Security Bill. There is the Miller case and the role of the police etc. Labour's position on these matters is opaque and Starmer's record is therefore a matter of interest. No-one has focused on that aspect of what the PM has said. No-one now will.
I don't defend what the PM he said nor how he did it. But nor do I believe that anyone - including Starmer - is beyond scrutiny. But this is not the way to do it and when it leads to mob abuse and violence it is quite disgraceful. This PM just takes everything he touches and makes it worse.
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 answer is obvious. Chris Huhne had just had a tremendous row in Cabinet with George Osborne - sufficiently well reported at the time for me to have read about it. That was not the only instance of a Lib Dem colleague falling out with a top Tory, or overshadowing him in the public gaze, only to have some misdemeanour exposed in the media.
I am reminded of this when I read of the dirty tricked that were threatened to be used against Conservative MPs who have dared to fall out with Boris Johnson recently.
Don't be bloody stupid. was Huhne's wife in on the tory plot?
(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.
Spot on with your second paragraph Nick. Douglas Ross and his entire Holyrood team played an absolute blinder. Unanimously calling for Johnson to resign. It is definitely buoying them. For now…
SCon will have a real problem if Boris is still leader at the time of the next GE, but they should be able to ride out this year's local elections OK. Still the Go To party for the unionist anti-SNP voter given SLAB's inability to get off the floor and the lack of profile of the LibDems in much of Scotland.
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 answer is obvious. Chris Huhne had just had a tremendous row in Cabinet with George Osborne - sufficiently well reported at the time for me to have read about it. That was not the only instance of a Lib Dem colleague falling out with a top Tory, or overshadowing him in the public gaze, only to have some misdemeanour exposed in the media.
I am reminded of this when I read of the dirty tricked that were threatened to be used against Conservative MPs who have dared to fall out with Boris Johnson recently.
I might, just might, find the time to research the timescales. Sometime. Sounds interesting. When the history of our time is written and all that.
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.
1. You misunderstand the process
2. You are corrected
3. You attack the process
I would almost guarantee that you have at some stage said approvingly on these boards that English justice = innocent till proven guilty, and that applies across the board. The rule is not, not definitively guilty, but probably a wrong 'un if the CPS have noticed him, so we will keep this prejudicial material indefinitely.
Again, your last paragraph is irrelevant. The question is how much justice would a *failed* prosecution have given anyone? How do you think you prosecute someone when your witnesses decline to give evidence against them?
You are being fairly incoherent.
I am really not. But if I am incoherent stop reading me, and go and read some of the ample evidence freely available on the internet about all this, rather than commentate on your own wildly inaccurate guesses?
I do not believe I misunderstood the process. In addition, of course I believe in 'innocent until proven guilty' - I fail to see why you think that is relevant.
The Saville situation is just one of many similar situations that have occurred over the decades - it is vital lessons are learned and they are prevented from occurring again.
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.
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 answer is obvious. Chris Huhne had just had a tremendous row in Cabinet with George Osborne - sufficiently well reported at the time for me to have read about it. That was not the only instance of a Lib Dem colleague falling out with a top Tory, or overshadowing him in the public gaze, only to have some misdemeanour exposed in the media.
I am reminded of this when I read of the dirty tricked that were threatened to be used against Conservative MPs who have dared to fall out with Boris Johnson recently.
It was Huhne’s ex-wife who dobbed him in for the speeding ticket fraud, after he dumped her for another woman, was it not?
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
I loathe the man so much I may vote Tory to try to play my small part in stopping him.
What is there to 'loathe' about Starmer? Corbyn, yes, Johnson, yes, but Starmer?
Starmer is now forever linked with Savile. It was a Crosbyesque gamble that looks like it is paying off.
Downing Street are quite cynically doubling down on Johnson's non-apology and Chris Philp spent the morning entwining Starmer and Savile with his support of Johnson's "clarification". Listening to Five Live there was more criticism of Starmer than there was of Johnson.
If Johnson can ride out the next few days he is emboldened and Starmer permanently weakened. Lynton Crosby has done his work.
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 answer is obvious. Chris Huhne had just had a tremendous row in Cabinet with George Osborne - sufficiently well reported at the time for me to have read about it. That was not the only instance of a Lib Dem colleague falling out with a top Tory, or overshadowing him in the public gaze, only to have some misdemeanour exposed in the media.
I am reminded of this when I read of the dirty tricked that were threatened to be used against Conservative MPs who have dared to fall out with Boris Johnson recently.
Don't be bloody stupid. was Huhne's wife in on the tory plot?
Wasn't she egged on by that dumb barrister?
PS I had a certain sympathy with Huhne at the time because I got done by the same speed camera at the south end of the M11. It's a nasty little trap because the speed limit drops unexpectedly to 50mph at that point.
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.
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.
1. You misunderstand the process
2. You are corrected
3. You attack the process
I would almost guarantee that you have at some stage said approvingly on these boards that English justice = innocent till proven guilty, and that applies across the board. The rule is not, not definitively guilty, but probably a wrong 'un if the CPS have noticed him, so we will keep this prejudicial material indefinitely.
Again, your last paragraph is irrelevant. The question is how much justice would a *failed* prosecution have given anyone? How do you think you prosecute someone when your witnesses decline to give evidence against them?
You are being fairly incoherent.
I am really not. But if I am incoherent stop reading me, and go and read some of the ample evidence freely available on the internet about all this, rather than commentate on your own wildly inaccurate guesses?
I do not believe I misunderstood the process. In addition, of course I believe in 'innocent until proven guilty' - I fail to see why you think that is relevant.
The Saville situation is just one of many similar situations that have occurred over the decades - it is vital lessons are learned and they are prevented from occurring again.
Read the latest IICSA report and you will see that not only have vital lessons not been learnt but that the same problems are still happening in a large number of places.
to access e.g STRAP3 docs on Huawei, you need to go through 'developed vetting' (DV). this usually takes months. even when accelerated - weeks. there is *no way* this happened between Friday pm & Monday for Huawei Hari. no10 lying again
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
I loathe the man so much I may vote Tory to try to play my small part in stopping him.
What is there to 'loathe' about Starmer? Corbyn, yes, Johnson, yes, but Starmer?
Starmer is now forever linked with Savile. It was a Crosbyesque gamble that looks like it is paying off.
Downing Street are quite cynically doubling down on Johnson's non-apology and Chris Philp spent the morning entwining Starmer and Savile with his support of Johnson's "clarification". Listening to Five Live there was more criticism of Starmer than there was of Johnson.
If Johnson can ride out the next few days he is emboldened and Starmer permanently weakened. Lynton Crosby has done his work.
Johnson of course is on record as being strongly (I think that's fair) opposed to historic allegations of child abuse being investigated.
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.
1. You misunderstand the process
2. You are corrected
3. You attack the process
I would almost guarantee that you have at some stage said approvingly on these boards that English justice = innocent till proven guilty, and that applies across the board. The rule is not, not definitively guilty, but probably a wrong 'un if the CPS have noticed him, so we will keep this prejudicial material indefinitely.
Again, your last paragraph is irrelevant. The question is how much justice would a *failed* prosecution have given anyone? How do you think you prosecute someone when your witnesses decline to give evidence against them?
You are being fairly incoherent.
I am really not. But if I am incoherent stop reading me, and go and read some of the ample evidence freely available on the internet about all this, rather than commentate on your own wildly inaccurate guesses?
I do not believe I misunderstood the process. In addition, of course I believe in 'innocent until proven guilty' - I fail to see why you think that is relevant.
The Saville situation is just one of many similar situations that have occurred over the decades - it is vital lessons are learned and they are prevented from occurring again.
Your insinuation that there was something suspicious about the CPS destroying records.
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
I loathe the man so much I may vote Tory to try to play my small part in stopping him.
What is there to 'loathe' about Starmer? Corbyn, yes, Johnson, yes, but Starmer?
Starmer is now forever linked with Savile. It was a Crosbyesque gamble that looks like it is paying off.
Downing Street are quite cynically doubling down on Johnson's non-apology and Chris Philp spent the morning entwining Starmer and Savile with his support of Johnson's "clarification". Listening to Five Live there was more criticism of Starmer than there was of Johnson.
If Johnson can ride out the next few days he is emboldened and Starmer permanently weakened. Lynton Crosby has done his work.
I'm not at all sure about this, personally. The Mail online is defending Starmer pretty hard, for instance, and Starmer also gets to look like the sober prosecutor against the irresponsible Boris again.
"Boris refuses to say sorry...even though Starmer played no role in the case and the decision not to bring charges."
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
I loathe the man so much I may vote Tory to try to play my small part in stopping him.
What is there to 'loathe' about Starmer? Corbyn, yes, Johnson, yes, but Starmer?
Starmer is now forever linked with Savile. It was a Crosbyesque gamble that looks like it is paying off.
Downing Street are quite cynically doubling down on Johnson's non-apology and Chris Philp spent the morning entwining Starmer and Savile with his support of Johnson's "clarification". Listening to Five Live there was more criticism of Starmer than there was of Johnson.
If Johnson can ride out the next few days he is emboldened and Starmer permanently weakened. Lynton Crosby has done his work.
At what cost? Someone like me is supposed to be a solid Tory voter. And after this and the silence from my MP, I’ll vote for whoever is most likely to unseat them. And I won’t be quiet about that at election time either.
We’re more or less at the point where the leader at the election will be irrelevant to me, because the masses of Tory MPs (save a few noble exceptions) have shown themselves unfit for public service through their silence or active connivance.
Post partygate what Johnson could have previously got away with changes .
More people are now going to look at this as a desperate smear from a pathological liar . I really don’t see this as any kind of winning deflection strategy for Johnson .
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
I loathe the man so much I may vote Tory to try to play my small part in stopping him.
What is there to 'loathe' about Starmer? Corbyn, yes, Johnson, yes, but Starmer?
Starmer is now forever linked with Savile. It was a Crosbyesque gamble that looks like it is paying off.
Downing Street are quite cynically doubling down on Johnson's non-apology and Chris Philp spent the morning entwining Starmer and Savile with his support of Johnson's "clarification". Listening to Five Live there was more criticism of Starmer than there was of Johnson.
If Johnson can ride out the next few days he is emboldened and Starmer permanently weakened. Lynton Crosby has done his work.
No I don't think so MP. The association is too far-fetched, unless you already have some kind of agenda.
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.
1. You misunderstand the process
2. You are corrected
3. You attack the process
I would almost guarantee that you have at some stage said approvingly on these boards that English justice = innocent till proven guilty, and that applies across the board. The rule is not, not definitively guilty, but probably a wrong 'un if the CPS have noticed him, so we will keep this prejudicial material indefinitely.
Again, your last paragraph is irrelevant. The question is how much justice would a *failed* prosecution have given anyone? How do you think you prosecute someone when your witnesses decline to give evidence against them?
You are being fairly incoherent.
I am really not. But if I am incoherent stop reading me, and go and read some of the ample evidence freely available on the internet about all this, rather than commentate on your own wildly inaccurate guesses?
I do not believe I misunderstood the process. In addition, of course I believe in 'innocent until proven guilty' - I fail to see why you think that is relevant.
The Saville situation is just one of many similar situations that have occurred over the decades - it is vital lessons are learned and they are prevented from occurring again.
Read the latest IICSA report and you will see that not only have vital lessons not been learnt but that the same problems are still happening in a large number of places.
Deeply depressing.
"Lessons Have Been Learned"
"For The Greater Good"
I take it that the innocent have been punished and praise & honour given to the semi-uninvolved?
(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.
Spot on with your second paragraph Nick. Douglas Ross and his entire Holyrood team played an absolute blinder. Unanimously calling for Johnson to resign. It is definitely buoying them. For now…
SCon will have a real problem if Boris is still leader at the time of the next GE, but they should be able to ride out this year's local elections OK. Still the Go To party for the unionist anti-SNP voter given SLAB's inability to get off the floor and the lack of profile of the LibDems in much of Scotland.
I think SLab, SLD and Greens are likely to exceed expectations. SCons likely to be a little disappointed, but no collapse. Glasgow will determine how the BBC and other media report the results. A bit unfair that just 1 out of 32 results is deemed to be so important, but they know their audience.
This sorry affair presents a test both of moral integrity for MPs (it is obviously wrong to deploy conspiracy theories against opponents) but also of self-interest (it puts them collectively at risk to swim in these dangerous waters). Amazing that so few can see it. https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1490778065408045059
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.
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
I loathe the man so much I may vote Tory to try to play my small part in stopping him.
What is there to 'loathe' about Starmer? Corbyn, yes, Johnson, yes, but Starmer?
Starmer is now forever linked with Savile. It was a Crosbyesque gamble that looks like it is paying off.
Downing Street are quite cynically doubling down on Johnson's non-apology and Chris Philp spent the morning entwining Starmer and Savile with his support of Johnson's "clarification". Listening to Five Live there was more criticism of Starmer than there was of Johnson.
If Johnson can ride out the next few days he is emboldened and Starmer permanently weakened. Lynton Crosby has done his work.
No I don't think so MP. The association is too far-fetched, unless you already have some kind of agenda.
So you think its far fetched for the DPP to be told about a very famous person being potentially charged with the rape of underage girls who had learning difficulties.
I would be astonished if he was not told about it.
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
I loathe the man so much I may vote Tory to try to play my small part in stopping him.
What is there to 'loathe' about Starmer? Corbyn, yes, Johnson, yes, but Starmer?
Starmer is now forever linked with Savile. It was a Crosbyesque gamble that looks like it is paying off.
Downing Street are quite cynically doubling down on Johnson's non-apology and Chris Philp spent the morning entwining Starmer and Savile with his support of Johnson's "clarification". Listening to Five Live there was more criticism of Starmer than there was of Johnson.
If Johnson can ride out the next few days he is emboldened and Starmer permanently weakened. Lynton Crosby has done his work.
This has a real danger for Starmer and as you say Starmer and Savile are leading all the news programmes which is not the outcome he or labour would want
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.
Sky just announced Russia is sending 6 warships to the Black Sea
So much for Macron de-escalating the issue and of course this will inflame Turkey
Biden better on this yesterday saying the US would cancel the Nordstream pipeline if Russia invaded Ukraine
I watched that live and he was asked how, and he repeated Nordstream would be closed down (not cancelled)
With the German Chancellor standing beside him he looked down the camera lens, and effectively intimated US forces would eliminate it,
More likely is the economic sanctions route - which would make it virtually impossible to pay for the gas.
Blowing up the pipeline would be an.... interesting precedent.
Yes - the economic route will be very effective if they put sanctions on anything relating to Nordstream.
Every project I get asked to look at for my work I check very very carefully that there is no part along the line where there is any tiny risk that you come up against any form of US sanctions. Parties involved all the way down the line are checked thoroughly and even then if there is even the slight chance and I don’t have perfect clarity then I won’t touch it.
The US are brilliant/evil (depending on your side) at covering so many areas such as any part of a transaction using US Dollars/clearing amongst other parts of a transaction that happen in the US.
So any German businessman who is involved with Nordstream will be either be crapping themselves in case they find themselves in an orange jumpsuit on the way to the US or actually doing business relating to Nordstream will be so onerous and difficult to do without risking US jurisdiction that it will cause it problems and be unviable.
Does no-one in government have any familiarity with teenage boys trying to find ‘bad stuff’ online?
I don't feel strongly about this.
Yes, not all websites will comply (obviously). But I am quite sure that the big players will. That will put off *some* under 18s. And I do think it is a real issue at the moment.
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 examine his record, or begin a thoughtful public debate about the institutional failings of the CPS. Many of them probably think he is part of a conspiracy, because Johnson repeated a conspiracy meme from the internet.
I think allegations of permitting/consorting with child abusers are absolutely standard in modern politics.
Did Tom Watson ever apologize for any of his allegations? Were any of them ever shown to be true?
Remember, Watson spoke of “clear intelligence suggesting a powerful pedophile network linked to parliament and number 10.”
Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, the Lolita Express. Wink-wink. Joe Biden and his creepy behaviour towards young girls and women, nudge, nudge.
It is absolutely standard. Boris is just using a well-worn tactic of both the right and left.
Tom Watson never apologised. Just "regret".
What he did, in my view, is far worse than what Johnson did. Yet the reactions are totally different.
People went to their graves with these allegations from Carl Beech hanging over them and yet there are people on the labour side who still think Watson deserves a place in the Lords.
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
I loathe the man so much I may vote Tory to try to play my small part in stopping him.
What is there to 'loathe' about Starmer? Corbyn, yes, Johnson, yes, but Starmer?
From my POV the same question applies but with Corbyn at the start, different strokes for different folks. Bigotry and lies with a dash of working for the rich fronted by a squeaky voice and the bonus of mad authoritarian who can't take criticism really isn't my cup of tea...
Even Johnson sure plenty to criticise but in comparison to Starmer, I'd have a lifetime of Johnson over a minute of Starmer.
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 answer is obvious. Chris Huhne had just had a tremendous row in Cabinet with George Osborne - sufficiently well reported at the time for me to have read about it. That was not the only instance of a Lib Dem colleague falling out with a top Tory, or overshadowing him in the public gaze, only to have some misdemeanour exposed in the media.
I am reminded of this when I read of the dirty tricked that were threatened to be used against Conservative MPs who have dared to fall out with Boris Johnson recently.
It was Huhne’s ex-wife who dobbed him in for the speeding ticket fraud, after he dumped her for another woman, was it not?
I think you are misremembering the sequence of events......
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.
1. You misunderstand the process
2. You are corrected
3. You attack the process
I would almost guarantee that you have at some stage said approvingly on these boards that English justice = innocent till proven guilty, and that applies across the board. The rule is not, not definitively guilty, but probably a wrong 'un if the CPS have noticed him, so we will keep this prejudicial material indefinitely.
Again, your last paragraph is irrelevant. The question is how much justice would a *failed* prosecution have given anyone? How do you think you prosecute someone when your witnesses decline to give evidence against them?
You are being fairly incoherent.
I am really not. But if I am incoherent stop reading me, and go and read some of the ample evidence freely available on the internet about all this, rather than commentate on your own wildly inaccurate guesses?
I do not believe I misunderstood the process. In addition, of course I believe in 'innocent until proven guilty' - I fail to see why you think that is relevant.
The Saville situation is just one of many similar situations that have occurred over the decades - it is vital lessons are learned and they are prevented from occurring again.
Your insinuation that there was something suspicious about the CPS destroying records.
Destruction of records and rotation of managers through jobs on a timescale of a couple of years are standard throughout all large organisations, as a way of protecting careers.
The original justification for the destruction of records was that they take up space. In the age of electronic record keeping, not so much. A relative who tuns a business pays for a service that scans paperwork - everything over a certain age goes into it. He also (being IT minded) then runs OCR to create a search index.
On topic but the government defence of Johnson's Saville comments today are infuriating. Muttering something about Starmer not prosecuting Saville is not a reasonable discussion on organisational accountability. It's like arguing that talking about the Hollywood elite harvesting children's plasma is a fair discussion on the failings of the cosmetics industry
Too late. We've already had 70,000,000 Turks arriving. Johnson is a piece of shit. Let's hope the judgement on him is served before it's left to history
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.
Good to see you back. What are your thoughts about Starmer? So far we've only heard from one 'Corbynite' and he seems to have lost it. Hest chants the same mantra every time he appears
I loathe the man so much I may vote Tory to try to play my small part in stopping him.
What is there to 'loathe' about Starmer? Corbyn, yes, Johnson, yes, but Starmer?
Starmer is now forever linked with Savile. It was a Crosbyesque gamble that looks like it is paying off.
Downing Street are quite cynically doubling down on Johnson's non-apology and Chris Philp spent the morning entwining Starmer and Savile with his support of Johnson's "clarification". Listening to Five Live there was more criticism of Starmer than there was of Johnson.
If Johnson can ride out the next few days he is emboldened and Starmer permanently weakened. Lynton Crosby has done his work.
No I don't think so MP. The association is too far-fetched, unless you already have some kind of agenda.
The "beauty" of the divisive politics beloved of Johnson and Trump, is of course that many previously normal people have developed "some kind of agenda" so are ever more receptive of further nonsense.
When Boris finally leaves I do hope that the next decent Tory leader finds a role for Julian Smith who was not only a very good Northern Ireland Secretary of State but also has a moral compass. It's not as if we're falling over competent decent MPs - let alone Ministers - these days.
Does no-one in government have any familiarity with teenage boys trying to find ‘bad stuff’ online?
I don't feel strongly about this.
Yes, not all websites will comply (obviously). But I am quite sure that the big players will. That will put off *some* under 18s. And I do think it is a real issue at the moment.
There is indeed an issue with piles of unsuitable material for teenagers online, but this proposal is absolutely the wrong way to go about dealing with it.
It won’t stop the problem, will make millions of legitimate users jump through hoops (or deploy the same evasion tactics as the teenagers), and will generate a database of ID ready to be compromised for use in theft or fraud.
Comments
Johnson's issue is however that he has said something that the mob are already focused on. So no Johnson didn't cause the problem of the mob, but he exacerbates it and legitimises it in the very way Trump does. It is the first time he has done this and I suspect he really regrets it now (unlike Trump) and probably didn't think this backlash would happen.
The SNP would demand indyref2 plus devomax of course to make Starmer PM. So ironically a Sunak premiership makes indyref2 more likely
Did Tom Watson ever apologize for any of his allegations? Were any of them ever shown to be true?
Remember, Watson spoke of “clear intelligence suggesting a powerful pedophile network linked to parliament and number 10.”
Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, the Lolita Express. Wink-wink. Joe Biden and his creepy behaviour towards young girls and women, nudge, nudge.
It is absolutely standard. Boris is just using a well-worn tactic of both the right and left.
Savile had got away with being a peodophile for at least most, possibly all, of his adult life. To suggest that 2009 was the only opportunity to bring that monster to justice is completely ridiculous but, on the basis of their own report, that last opportunity was missed.
Would the DPP of the day have been consulted about such a high profile prosecution? I don't know. Would he have made the call to prosecute or not? Vanishingly unlikely. Was the decision made in the context of the then policies of the DPP who had been in office a year? Yes. Is that fair game in the rough and tumble of politics? Why not?
Boris acknowledged that he had no evidence that SKS was involved personally in any of the decisions. The records no longer exist. But he was captain of the ship at the time and he set the policies which resulted in the decision that was made. If the DPP was a Minister he would have been responsible for what happened on his watch in his department. It is a moot point whether a public servant, as SKS then was, should be held to the same standard.
Unless he means that the US will impose financial sanctions which will make operating or buying the gas from it effectively impossible.
Or "rm -rf *.*" the physical pipeline......
That would probably mean some of them returning to Russia.
Nothing like that has ever been used by one party leader against another as a rhetorical tactic in the UK. The only part of the West were something comparable has happened is Trump's US, where parts of the Republican Party, and Trump himself, acquiesced with the lunatic idea that Biden was at the head of an international conspiracy of protecting paedophiles. That's where this tactic, and the particular meme it uses, comes from.
You plan for success and leave nothing for chance.
No sign of Paris, or JFK, or Frankfurt, or Schiphol
Heathrow is now an excellent airport, but of course it could be improved. You are right about the roads being a bit of a mess, for a start
It is really good to see the Return of @TheJezziah
2. You are corrected
3. You attack the process
I would almost guarantee that you have at some stage said approvingly on these boards that English justice = innocent till proven guilty, and that applies across the board. The rule is not, not definitively guilty, but probably a wrong 'un if the CPS have noticed him, so we will keep this prejudicial material indefinitely.
Again, your last paragraph is irrelevant. The question is how much justice would a *failed* prosecution have given anyone? How do you think you prosecute someone when your witnesses decline to give evidence against them?
"Uprooting Kremlin-linked oligarchs will be a challenge given the close ties between Russian money and the United Kingdom’s ruling conservative party, the press, and its real estate and financial industry. The United States should propose creating the working group in part to prod stronger action from the U.K. government."
Or was it the culture that the DPP didn’t want to know about these things, so they could plausibly deny knowledge of them at a later date?
If you are really interested in this why don't you go and find out the facts and post that here rather than speculating wildly when the information is out there for you to read.
LBJ: "‘I know it’s not true, but let’s make the sonofabitch deny it.”
When you consider getting from Paddington to the next destination - 10 minutes can easily be lost in changing to another transport mode.
The lower prices will just be the final straw.
Is ‘more head injuries and passenger deaths’ the sort of ‘Brexit benefit’ voters had in mind? ~AA https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-freedom-eu-road-safety-b2009217.html
Here is an example of one he was trying to kick out but got a bit scared when the need emerged to actually produce evidence beyond Argh! Corbyn! Anti Semite!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/07/labour-drops-case-against-jewish-woman-for-alleged-antisemitism
And the freedom rubbish was directed at those who can exploit situations for personal, or company, profit. Not ordinary folk, although they might have been led to think that!
“You better get a move on Emmanuel and find a nice solution for me as I’m still going with Plan A until you get me something I want.”
Many of the smaller, specialist manufacturers of cars in the UK would have been adversely affected by these new standards, requiring extensive investment.
As the DPP what SKS did in the Chris Huhne case is exactly what I would expect him to do, although it was a minor offence, a famous person was involved so he made a statement about it. Why was he informed about the Chris Huhne case and not the Saville case ?
With the German Chancellor standing beside him he looked down the camera lens, and effectively intimated US forces would eliminate it,
I am reminded of this when I read of the dirty tricked that were threatened to be used against Conservative MPs who have dared to fall out with Boris Johnson recently.
If you can see any difference in someone being "attacked" for something that is true and being "attacked" for something that isn't true then so be it.
That does help explain how the Conservatives are maintaining a level of support in excess of 30% in most opinion polls.
That's a very different emotion.
1. Is Starmer's record as DPP a legitimate subject for scrutiny? Yes, of course. But why was this being raised in the context of the PM's responsibility for compliance with Covid regulations and not misleading the Commons? It was pure deflection.
2. Starmer has already taken responsibility for the CPS's failings in relation to Savile and apologised. So what point are Boris and chums trying to make? It's not that he - as head of the organisation- should take responsibility- because he's already done that. Rather, the implication is that he was somehow using his position as DPP to protect Savile. Or turn a blind eye to what he was up to. That's the smeary sub-text of what the PM said. And it is what is being picked up by those in the crowd yesterday and elsewhere. No amount of contortion about Starmer not being personally responsible ...blah ... blah .... which all these MPs are now using takes away from the fact that this is what will likely be remembered by those not aware of the details of what in fact happened.
3. It's also foolish if you're genuinely concerned about the CPS's record, especially in relation to sexual offences (don't think the PM is, IMO). There are real criticisms to be made about the CPS's record and about how sexual offences are investigated and prosecuted. I covered some of these in my recent header. But you'd have to be pretty naive to think that the PM gives a monkeys about any of that or the criminal justice system in general. The effect of this is that if anyone does look critically at the CPS's record - or Starmer's - no-one will listen.
4. One decision which does deserve scrutiny is Starmer's decision to prosecute journalists under some very antiquated laws. These were eventually thrown out by the courts and the decisions severely criticised. This matters because it is - possibly - an indication of Starmer's attitude to freedom of the press and free expression, rights which are constantly under attack by politicians of all sides, Labour included. Concerns have been expressed about the Online Security Bill. There is the Miller case and the role of the police etc. Labour's position on these matters is opaque and Starmer's record is therefore a matter of interest. No-one has focused on that aspect of what the PM has said. No-one now will.
I don't defend what the PM he said nor how he did it. But nor do I believe that anyone - including Starmer - is beyond scrutiny. But this is not the way to do it and when it leads to mob abuse and violence it is quite disgraceful. This PM just takes everything he touches and makes it worse.
When the history of our time is written and all that.
The Saville situation is just one of many similar situations that have occurred over the decades - it is vital lessons are learned and they are prevented from occurring again.
He was uncompromising and the conclusion to his comment was that the US military will take it out
Downing Street are quite cynically doubling down on Johnson's non-apology and Chris Philp spent the morning entwining Starmer and Savile with his support of Johnson's "clarification". Listening to Five Live there was more criticism of Starmer than there was of Johnson.
If Johnson can ride out the next few days he is emboldened and Starmer permanently weakened. Lynton Crosby has done his work.
PS I had a certain sympathy with Huhne at the time because I got done by the same speed camera at the south end of the M11. It's a nasty little trap because the speed limit drops unexpectedly to 50mph at that point.
Blowing up the pipeline would be an.... interesting precedent.
Deeply depressing.
https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1490979907010449408
One hopes Johnson is exposed as a spy for China by COB
"Boris refuses to say sorry...even though Starmer played no role in the case and the decision not to bring charges."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10488563/Pressure-piles-PM-hate-mob-targets-Starmer-Calls-intensify-Boris-retract-Jimmy-Savile-jibe-yelled-protesters-Labour-leader-Piers-Corbyn-spoke-anti-vax-crowd-outside-Parliament.html
We’re more or less at the point where the leader at the election will be irrelevant to me, because the masses of Tory MPs (save a few noble exceptions) have shown themselves unfit for public service through their silence or active connivance.
More people are now going to look at this as a desperate smear from a pathological liar . I really don’t see this as any kind of winning deflection strategy for Johnson .
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/08/porn-sites-expected-ban-children-government-strengthen-online/
Does no-one in government have any familiarity with teenage boys trying to find ‘bad stuff’ online?
1. Last week the PM made an accusation that he knows is defamatory outside this chamber. Will he now withdraw it and apologise?
for example...
"For The Greater Good"
I take it that the innocent have been punished and praise & honour given to the semi-uninvolved?
I am a lifelong fan of University Challenge and still can't help but think of his name each week when they announce Paxman's name.
RIP.
https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1490778065408045059
I would be astonished if he was not told about it.
Every project I get asked to look at for my work I check very very carefully that there is no part along the line where there is any tiny risk that you come up against any form of US sanctions. Parties involved all the way down the line are checked thoroughly and even then if there is even the slight chance and I don’t have perfect clarity then I won’t touch it.
The US are brilliant/evil (depending on your side) at covering so many areas such as any part of a transaction using US Dollars/clearing amongst other parts of a transaction that happen in the US.
So any German businessman who is involved with Nordstream will be either be crapping themselves in case they find themselves in an orange jumpsuit on the way to the US or actually doing business relating to Nordstream will be so onerous and difficult to do without risking US jurisdiction that it will cause it problems and be unviable.
Yes, not all websites will comply (obviously). But I am quite sure that the big players will. That will put off *some* under 18s. And I do think it is a real issue at the moment.
What he did, in my view, is far worse than what Johnson did. Yet the reactions are totally different.
People went to their graves with these allegations from Carl Beech hanging over them and yet there are people on the labour side who still think Watson deserves a place in the Lords.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-49090450
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49086717
Even Johnson sure plenty to criticise but in comparison to Starmer, I'd have a lifetime of Johnson over a minute of Starmer.
Tomorrow will be day 10 of this ongoing clusterfuck
I don't think they want to be reminded of that
The original justification for the destruction of records was that they take up space. In the age of electronic record keeping, not so much. A relative who tuns a business pays for a service that scans paperwork - everything over a certain age goes into it. He also (being IT minded) then runs OCR to create a search index.
It won’t stop the problem, will make millions of legitimate users jump through hoops (or deploy the same evasion tactics as the teenagers), and will generate a database of ID ready to be compromised for use in theft or fraud.