Mr Sunak’s 100th day in office will be marked with the Tories once again swirled in a poison cloud of allegations relating to rule-breaking, conflicts of interest, bullying of officials and money, all so horribly familiar from the Johnson years. Most voters will not follow every corkscrew turn of each affair, but they will get the overall impression that the reek of Tory scandal continues to sweat from this government.
This is not how Mr Sunak hoped to be assessed on his 100th day at Number 10. He looks a terrible judge of character, incapable of mastering his government and untrue to his promise to restore “integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level”. The scandals keep coming and he seems incapable of stemming them. Under Boris Johnson, it was “one rule for everyone else and no rules for us”. Under Rishi Sunak, it appears to be plus ça change.
New prime minister, same old stink.
The party that Rishi Sunak leads is finished until the reinvent themselves as the Conservative Party.
I do feel sorry for Sunak - he’s inherited a bunch of loons
And he’s paying the price for all the lunacy and dishonesty we suffered under Johnson and Truss.
I’d share your sympathy had he not been complicit in the Johnson saga until almost the end.
But Carol Vorderman equally clearly doesn’t know what insider trading is
I'm not sure that the nomenclature is the substantive point here.
The substantive point is that it is bullshit. It’s well known Rishi was a junior Co-founder of a hedge fund. What that hedge fund invests in a decade after Rishi left is irrelevant
But Carol Vorderman equally clearly doesn’t know what insider trading is
I'm not sure that the nomenclature is the substantive point here.
The substantive point is that it is bullshit. It’s well known Rishi was a junior Co-founder of a hedge fund. What that hedge fund invests in a decade after Rishi left is irrelevant
If this was Keir Starmer you wouldn’t stop going on about it. Just as with his curry
Don't be silly. If things need fixing he's still the best person to do it.
It was tongue in cheek!!!!
From a Man Utd fan. 🤭
To be serious, Chelsea, Tottenham and Liverpool could all start next season with different managers than today. Not that Klopp or Conte arn’t brilliant managers, but maybe they are no longer right fit or happy at clubs no longer backing them with transfers? Sometimes managers don’t resign or get sacked, the two parties have a frank and honest conversation and agree to move on.
Pellegrini at Chelsea already looks highly likely IMO.
Indeed. I became a United fan in 1953 so now in my 70th year having been a season ticket holder until fairly recently and was present in Barcelona when we won the European cup
I remember years ago Bobby Charlton telling me as I went into the AGM with him to remember to enjoy the good days as they will come and go over time and such wise words from a great footballer and person
Wow. There’s a name dropping anecdote.
Right back in the beginning of your 70 years Man Utd weren’t clearly English footballs biggest club were they as they later became? Times change. Will the truly good days come round so often again? The future doesn’t look so great for Man Utd. Not bad, but not obviously top 4 if they can’t compete on transfers and wages.
When money first came into Man City, it didn’t guarantee trophy’s from the start, but look at the squad depth now. So likewise, Newcastle and Chelsea will emerge as in top 3 English clubs alongside Man City.
In Liverpool and Man Utd we have clubs undergoing change of ownership. Question marks will hang there whether their new owners actually can compete in the top tier in transfer market. [Unless winning it] Three from seven top English clubs will miss out on Champions league football for as long as it remains top four to qualify - and that is bad for attracting players and bringing in revenue. Man City, Newcastle, Chelsea will be backed by their owners in top tier of transfers and comprise top four next year and for many coming seasons, Tottenham, Arsenal, Man Utd and Liverpool likely to supply the three sides missing out every season from next season onward.
I was born within 5 miles of the ground but in 1953 we moved to Berwick and I followed them from that time and of course the Busby babes were in vogue sadly being decimated in the Munich air crash in 1958. When we moved to North Wales in 1965 I was able to attend matches and also in 1966 was present at Goodison when the late great Pele played against Eusebio in the World cup tie
Lots of memories and several meetings with Alex Ferguuson and others
I would just say my late father supported both United and City as he said they are both Manchester teams but I did not inherit that attitude, bless him
You know, for all we like this place for he diversity of perspective and opinion (albeit from a cohort that is broadly well off, ageing and tends centrist), it is the evocativeness of familiarity that can get you most.
Cookie's familiarity with places I grew up his housing, holidays and similar life is one - a close mirror to me on the political right. That I can narrow Slade down to a village based on his restaurant choices (and the reorganization of my kids' activities means I pass a good few hours a week in or to and from the said village).
And this. My late father settled his football allegiances in the late 40s, early 50s, breaking with the City allegiance of his much older brothers, who had followed their father pre war. Whilst growing up about 5 miles from Old Trafford in a family that in that generation had strong, present Welsh ancestry and an affinity for the Conwy coast - one branch of the family retired there. Whatever the truth of it, I can almost picture Big_G's allegiances forming in strange parallel, in a similar family, in a similar town, for the exact same reasons as my own father's journey.
But Carol Vorderman equally clearly doesn’t know what insider trading is
I'm not sure that the nomenclature is the substantive point here.
The substantive point is that it is bullshit. It’s well known Rishi was a junior Co-founder of a hedge fund. What that hedge fund invests in a decade after Rishi left is irrelevant
If this was Keir Starmer you wouldn’t stop going on about it. Just as with his curry
Zahawi not being sacked until all the evidence was in on the surface seems fair enough. But it all falls apart when you remember that he appointed Suella Braverman who had been kicked out a week before he re-employed her for breaking the ministerial code.
It seem that someone is blowing up weapons facilities in Iran. Or is that just social media excitement?
The 5.9 richter earthquake was presumably co-incidental, but if it was enemy action that was some arms dump.
Anyone got the codes for Grazer One?
"Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups!"
Guangzhou is a chemical weapons plant masquerading as a fertilizer plant. We know this. The Chinese know that we know. But we make believe that we don't know and the Chinese make believe that they believe that we don't know, but know that we know. Everybody knows.
But Carol Vorderman equally clearly doesn’t know what insider trading is
I'm not sure that the nomenclature is the substantive point here.
The substantive point is that it is bullshit. It’s well known Rishi was a junior Co-founder of a hedge fund. What that hedge fund invests in a decade after Rishi left is irrelevant
If this was Keir Starmer you wouldn’t stop going on about it. Just as with his curry
I don’t recall posting on Starmer’s curry and certainly wouldn’t have “gone on about it”. I did find it a little amusing that it became an issue after Labour went to town on Boris Johnson’s birthday cake (I generally don’t like the police being brought into minor political scandals). But no fine was levied after the investigation
I suspect you are thinking about someone else
Edit: out of curiosity given I’ve barely posted this year (been commuting between the US, Poland and Germany) you seem strangely antagonistic
I don’t think so. Twitter last night and this evening seemed to be saying connected to nuclear programme not anything related to Ukraine. I don’t think they have that degree of reach. Israel though potentially. Or internal stuff.
With the damage she did and the scandals that are coming out now that she covered up £500k was not nearly enough compensation. We should be suing her for more.
But Carol Vorderman equally clearly doesn’t know what insider trading is
I'm not sure that the nomenclature is the substantive point here.
The substantive point is that it is bullshit. It’s well known Rishi was a junior Co-founder of a hedge fund. What that hedge fund invests in a decade after Rishi left is irrelevant
If you haven't familiarised yourself with the basic facts, discussion seems pointless.
With the damage she did and the scandals that are coming out now that she covered up £500k was not nearly enough compensation. We should be suing her for more.
She'd totally screwed up, and failed.
Obviously she needs a better job and a payout. She's one of The New Upper 10,000 - that's what failure means for them.
Mind you, 500K is a bit light for that. Charlie Prince got $91 million for crashing CITI (and nearly the whole financial system). He whined for years about how small his payout was.
With the damage she did and the scandals that are coming out now that she covered up £500k was not nearly enough compensation. We should be suing her for more.
She'd totally screwed up, and failed.
Obviously she needs a better job and a payout. She's one of The New Upper 10,000 - that's what failure means for them.
Mind you, 500K is a bit light for that. Charlie Prince got $91 million for crashing CITI (and nearly the whole financial system). He whined for years about how small his payout was.
In other sacked people news:
Monday's Telegraph: PM 'sacked Zahawi without a fair hearing'
Everybody's on the take. Conservative majority culture. Needs stamping out. A Labour government which does bugger all except insist you can't enrich yourself on the public dime is reason enough for a change of government.
But Carol Vorderman equally clearly doesn’t know what insider trading is
I'm not sure that the nomenclature is the substantive point here.
The substantive point is that it is bullshit. It’s well known Rishi was a junior Co-founder of a hedge fund. What that hedge fund invests in a decade after Rishi left is irrelevant
If you haven't familiarised yourself with the basic facts, discussion seems pointless.
He joined Theleme in 2010. He left when he went into politics. 8 years not 10. So sue me.
Apparently Tory voters by 49% to 37% want the fat lying oaf back as PM . Really these people should be sterilized so they can’t add more idiocy to the UK gene pool !
It does seem that Cyclefree was right about Cressida Dick and the Met, X 1000.
She, repeatedly, has pointed out the the publicly known facts of the failures of various organisations.
It's hard to be wrong when you are quoting the public record, multiple witnessed accounts and statements of what actually happened.
Indeed. But there also seem to be more scandals emerging about the Met that weren't even on the public record before, as far as I can see it. A catastrophically failing organisation.
Apparently Tory voters by 49% to 37% want the fat lying oaf back as PM . Really these people should be sterilized so they can’t add more idiocy to the UK gene pool !
By current demographics of Tory voters most will already have passed on their genes.
With the damage she did and the scandals that are coming out now that she covered up £500k was not nearly enough compensation. We should be suing her for more.
She'd totally screwed up, and failed.
Obviously she needs a better job and a payout. She's one of The New Upper 10,000 - that's what failure means for them.
Mind you, 500K is a bit light for that. Charlie Prince got $91 million for crashing CITI (and nearly the whole financial system). He whined for years about how small his payout was.
In other sacked people news:
Monday's Telegraph: PM 'sacked Zahawi without a fair hearing'
About as plausible as that bath story they did on Saturday.
Classic take from them though. It's the same with anyone caught wrongdoing, no matter what process there is they will always claim it was not fair. In this case at best Zahawi admitted to a level of incompetence with money that led to him having to pay millions, and that should be disqualifying for anyone in a Cabinet post anyway. Much more plausibly he was caught out on a historic attempt to dodge what he owed.
There's no explanation Zahawi could offer that should have resulted in anything other than a sacking, since he deserved that even if everything is as he is now claiming it was. So a whinge about the process, obviously for benefit of the large recalcitrant wing of the party, is just pathetic.
The silence now of ministers, committee members and other MSPs, and others, who have been so keen in the past to defame and disparage people who disagree with them makes me think that perhaps, just perhaps, we may not be dealing with such brave and principled people after all. https://twitter.com/lucyhunterb/status/1619795786161852417
It does seem that Cyclefree was right about Cressida Dick and the Met, X 1000.
She, repeatedly, has pointed out the the publicly known facts of the failures of various organisations.
It's hard to be wrong when you are quoting the public record, multiple witnessed accounts and statements of what actually happened.
Indeed. But there also seem to be more scandals emerging about the Met that weren't even on the public record before, as far as I can see it. A catastrophically failing organisation.
Given everything that was publicly known about the Met, what were the chances that all the nasty stuff was visible?
The stuff about recycling officers who were under investigation became public with Tomlinson, for example. If you are using sleight of hand to get officers with er… a heavy hand? on to the riot squad…. That means there must be more corrupt and fucked up idiots being traded like playing cards between forces.
But Carol Vorderman equally clearly doesn’t know what insider trading is
I'm not sure that the nomenclature is the substantive point here.
The substantive point is that it is bullshit. It’s well known Rishi was a junior Co-founder of a hedge fund. What that hedge fund invests in a decade after Rishi left is irrelevant
If this was Keir Starmer you wouldn’t stop going on about it. Just as with his curry
Zahawi not being sacked until all the evidence was in on the surface seems fair enough. But it all falls apart when you remember that he appointed Suella Braverman who had been kicked out a week before he re-employed her for breaking the ministerial code.
He is weak and he's an opportunist.
The Braverman thing really undercuts him a lot more than I think he realises. When his Cabinet was announced there was some disappointment about a lack of big changes from some quarters, but it was understandable in the light of party management, and JRM and Nadine being out will have gained him some plaudits as well. Even the Williamson appointment was only a minor cock up, since he was at least appointed to a minor role.
But Braverman? There are definitely others in the party just as keen to stop the boats. If she needed rewarding she could have been given another Cabinet post, with the rational explanation that he could welcome her back but not to the same role so soon after what she herself had said about why she left.
He lost a lot of goodwill from people who are persuadable to return to Tory support, or at least contemplate giving them a chance.
With the damage she did and the scandals that are coming out now that she covered up £500k was not nearly enough compensation. We should be suing her for more.
She'd totally screwed up, and failed.
Obviously she needs a better job and a payout. She's one of The New Upper 10,000 - that's what failure means for them.
Mind you, 500K is a bit light for that. Charlie Prince got $91 million for crashing CITI (and nearly the whole financial system). He whined for years about how small his payout was.
In other sacked people news:
Monday's Telegraph: PM 'sacked Zahawi without a fair hearing'
About as plausible as that bath story they did on Saturday.
Classic take from them though. It's the same with anyone caught wrongdoing, no matter what process there is they will always claim it was not fair. In this case at best Zahawi admitted to a level of incompetence with money that led to him having to pay millions, and that should be disqualifying for anyone in a Cabinet post anyway. Much more plausibly he was caught out on a historic attempt to dodge what he owed.
There's no explanation Zahawi could offer that should have resulted in anything other than a sacking, since he deserved that even if everything is as he is now claiming it was. So a whinge about the process, obviously for benefit of the large recalcitrant wing of the party, is just pathetic.
What is this 'fair hearing', process stuff anyway ? The process (in Zahawi's case) is saying "you're sacked", and that's about it. No such thing as unfair dismissal for such political appointments.
Everybody's on the take. Conservative majority culture. Needs stamping out. A Labour government which does bugger all except insist you can't enrich yourself on the public dime is reason enough for a change of government.
The culture of entitlement to payouts and better jobs for failure goes way back.
Sharon Shoesmith wanted (and got) a big payout for being responsible for the death of Baby P, for example.
When I become UnDictator, those who fail will have a different role in public service provided for them. Providing shade - see Crassus and Vlad The Impaler.
Thank you for your comments on my article, both pro and con. I found your points interesting and several were useable, which I hope to incorporate into the longer version (you will be properly credited). I will address your points more fully at a later date. Once again, thank you for your replies.
Here are some YouTubes. More journalistic pieces will follow later
With the damage she did and the scandals that are coming out now that she covered up £500k was not nearly enough compensation. We should be suing her for more.
She'd totally screwed up, and failed.
Obviously she needs a better job and a payout. She's one of The New Upper 10,000 - that's what failure means for them.
Mind you, 500K is a bit light for that. Charlie Prince got $91 million for crashing CITI (and nearly the whole financial system). He whined for years about how small his payout was.
In other sacked people news:
Monday's Telegraph: PM 'sacked Zahawi without a fair hearing'
About as plausible as that bath story they did on Saturday.
Classic take from them though. It's the same with anyone caught wrongdoing, no matter what process there is they will always claim it was not fair. In this case at best Zahawi admitted to a level of incompetence with money that led to him having to pay millions, and that should be disqualifying for anyone in a Cabinet post anyway. Much more plausibly he was caught out on a historic attempt to dodge what he owed.
There's no explanation Zahawi could offer that should have resulted in anything other than a sacking, since he deserved that even if everything is as he is now claiming it was. So a whinge about the process, obviously for benefit of the large recalcitrant wing of the party, is just pathetic.
What is this 'fair hearing', process stuff anyway ? The process is saying "you're sacked", and that's about it.
At the least they must have had a conversation prior to publicly exchanging letters. Zahawi will have had a last ditch chance to explain himself and convince Sunak not to sack him.
Sunak cannot win. Wait for the smoking gun and be called weak for not acting sooner, but also be called unfair for...I'm actually not sure exactly.
Obviously the right decision, but a tacit admission that the safeguards don’t work. The safety of women prisoners in Scotland appears to depend on the press shaming politicians into action, which cannot be right. https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1619734995035369473 BREAKING: Scottish Government intervenes today to immediately block any trans prisoner “with a history of violence against women” from being held or transferred to all-female jails.
Well, common sense prevails (after we have tried everything else, of course). To be honest I give Sturgeon some credit for this. At least she is willing to admit she was wrong. It can't have been easy.
You need to read the announcement more carefully.
Violent men already in the women's estate won't be moved out and it is only men convicted of very serious violence against women who will be kept out while they urgently review a policy which has been under review since 2018. Women will still have to put up with slightly less violent men. And men convicted of very serious violence against other men, presumably on the basis that such men have some sort of chivalric code which means they cannot possibly be a threat to women.
Perhaps this time the Scottish Prison Service will consult women and do an equality impact assessment, neither of which were done previously it seems.
Amazing what a bit of bad publicity will panic a politician into doing.
Everybody's on the take. Conservative majority culture. Needs stamping out. A Labour government which does bugger all except insist you can't enrich yourself on the public dime is reason enough for a change of government.
The culture of entitlement to payouts and better jobs for failure goes way back.
Sharon Shoesmith wanted (and got) a big payout for being responsible for the death of Baby P, for example.
When I become UnDictator, those who fail will have a different role in public service provided for them. Providing shade - see Crassus and Vlad The Impaler.
Everybody's on the take. Conservative majority culture. Needs stamping out. A Labour government which does bugger all except insist you can't enrich yourself on the public dime is reason enough for a change of government.
The culture of entitlement to payouts and better jobs for failure goes way back.
Sharon Shoesmith wanted (and got) a big payout for being responsible for the death of Baby P, for example.
When I become UnDictator, those who fail will have a different role in public service provided for them. Providing shade - see Crassus and Vlad The Impaler.
I forgot Sharon Shoesmitn personally tortured that baby….you Tory misinformationers….you try to draw equivalence when there isn’t fucking any…..
It does seem that Cyclefree was right about Cressida Dick and the Met, X 1000.
She, repeatedly, has pointed out the the publicly known facts of the failures of various organisations.
It's hard to be wrong when you are quoting the public record, multiple witnessed accounts and statements of what actually happened.
Indeed. But there also seem to be more scandals emerging about the Met that weren't even on the public record before, as far as I can see it. A catastrophically failing organisation.
Given everything that was publicly known about the Met, what were the chances that all the nasty stuff was visible?
The stuff about recycling officers who were under investigation became public with Tomlinson, for example. If you are using sleight of hand to get officers with er… a heavy hand? on to the riot squad…. That means there must be more corrupt and fucked up idiots being traded like playing cards between forces.
This is correct, but I would say the point I was making was more that Cyclefree correctly assessed the whole organisation's methods as qualitatively unfit, rather than just extrapolating and extending data from what was already known, or on the public record. It takes an experienced investigator to see the patterns and signs of evasion in an organisation.
Look, the work is definitely very male, but even for the provocative hook to a podcast the options could be presented as less binary.
Was he a genius writer whose sprawling fantasy worlds have delighted millions of readers and filmgoers? Or an evil, reactionary, woman-hating possible racist?
(For what it is worth I'd say Tolkein was a superlative worldbuilder rather than a genius writer - and after reading descriptions in Unfinished Tales about his scribbling important details down on random papers, he was also in desperate need of an ideas notebook to carry round with him)
Everybody's on the take. Conservative majority culture. Needs stamping out. A Labour government which does bugger all except insist you can't enrich yourself on the public dime is reason enough for a change of government.
The culture of entitlement to payouts and better jobs for failure goes way back.
Sharon Shoesmith wanted (and got) a big payout for being responsible for the death of Baby P, for example.
When I become UnDictator, those who fail will have a different role in public service provided for them. Providing shade - see Crassus and Vlad The Impaler.
I forgot Sharon Shoesmitn personally tortured that baby….you Tory misinformationers….you try to draw equivalence when there isn’t fucking any…..
She was guilty like Cressida Dick for the failure of her organisation. Maybe more so.
She also spent lots of time persecuting the young lady actually trying to save baby Peters life. Via administrative investigation on bullshit charges.
And complained in memos about said lady always banging on about the child she thought was being abused….
And complained that she didn’t get the payout she felt she was due.
Not sure why you want to die on that hill.
The corrupt practise of the better job and the payout is something I’ve been highlighting for decades.
The whole lot of them need to be trying to get a background check pas for being a taxi driver. And failing.
If you think that a change in government will change the practise, then your disappointment will be swift.
It does seem that Cyclefree was right about Cressida Dick and the Met, X 1000.
She, repeatedly, has pointed out the the publicly known facts of the failures of various organisations.
It's hard to be wrong when you are quoting the public record, multiple witnessed accounts and statements of what actually happened.
Indeed. But there also seem to be more scandals emerging about the Met that weren't even on the public record before, as far as I can see it. A catastrophically failing organisation.
Given everything that was publicly known about the Met, what were the chances that all the nasty stuff was visible?
The stuff about recycling officers who were under investigation became public with Tomlinson, for example. If you are using sleight of hand to get officers with er… a heavy hand? on to the riot squad…. That means there must be more corrupt and fucked up idiots being traded like playing cards between forces.
This is correct, but I would say the point I was making was more that Cyclefree correctly assessed the whole organisation's methods as qualitatively unfit, rather than just extrapolating and extending data from what was already known, or on the public record. It takes an experienced investigator to see the patterns and signs of evasion in an organisation.
Yes it does. Thank you. I see the same pattern repeated over and over.
What is happening now in politics is a complete failure to realise what conflicts of interest are, why they are bad and how to avoid them. They are at the heart of most scandals. They are at the heart of all the scandals afflicting this government and until this changes they will carry on happening.
I wish I could be confident that Labour truly understand the problems with conflict of interest. I'm not. The Lib Dems certainly don't.
It does seem that Cyclefree was right about Cressida Dick and the Met, X 1000.
She, repeatedly, has pointed out the the publicly known facts of the failures of various organisations.
It's hard to be wrong when you are quoting the public record, multiple witnessed accounts and statements of what actually happened.
Indeed. But there also seem to be more scandals emerging about the Met that weren't even on the public record before, as far as I can see it. A catastrophically failing organisation.
Given everything that was publicly known about the Met, what were the chances that all the nasty stuff was visible?
The stuff about recycling officers who were under investigation became public with Tomlinson, for example. If you are using sleight of hand to get officers with er… a heavy hand? on to the riot squad…. That means there must be more corrupt and fucked up idiots being traded like playing cards between forces.
This is correct, but I would say the point I was making was more that Cyclefree correctly assessed the whole organisation's methods as qualitatively unfit, rather than just extrapolating and extending data from what was already known, or on the public record. It takes an experienced investigator to see the patterns and signs of evasion in an organisation.
It would be astonishing if an organisation that fucks up so massively in several areas is actually brilliant at all the others.
The Met was an obvious clown show to anyone who looked - @Cyclefree simply gave us the reality, often in the very words of the Met themselves.
There was not the slightest chance of her being wrong.
Obviously the right decision, but a tacit admission that the safeguards don’t work. The safety of women prisoners in Scotland appears to depend on the press shaming politicians into action, which cannot be right. https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1619734995035369473 BREAKING: Scottish Government intervenes today to immediately block any trans prisoner “with a history of violence against women” from being held or transferred to all-female jails.
Well, common sense prevails (after we have tried everything else, of course). To be honest I give Sturgeon some credit for this. At least she is willing to admit she was wrong. It can't have been easy.
You need to read the announcement more carefully.
Violent men already in the women's estate won't be moved out and it is only men convicted of very serious violence against women who will be kept out while they urgently review a policy which has been under review since 2018. Women will still have to put up with slightly less violent men. And men convicted of very serious violence against other men, presumably on the basis that such men have some sort of chivalric code which means they cannot possibly be a threat to women.
Perhaps this time the Scottish Prison Service will consult women and do an equality impact assessment, neither of which were done previously it seems.
Amazing what a bit of bad publicity will panic a politician into doing.
And sadly the clock is ticking, like the tell take heart, until the horrible, inevitable conclusion.
I hope I am wrong. But reality tells me it will happen.
It does seem that Cyclefree was right about Cressida Dick and the Met, X 1000.
She, repeatedly, has pointed out the the publicly known facts of the failures of various organisations.
It's hard to be wrong when you are quoting the public record, multiple witnessed accounts and statements of what actually happened.
Indeed. But there also seem to be more scandals emerging about the Met that weren't even on the public record before, as far as I can see it. A catastrophically failing organisation.
Given everything that was publicly known about the Met, what were the chances that all the nasty stuff was visible?
The stuff about recycling officers who were under investigation became public with Tomlinson, for example. If you are using sleight of hand to get officers with er… a heavy hand? on to the riot squad…. That means there must be more corrupt and fucked up idiots being traded like playing cards between forces.
This is correct, but I would say the point I was making was more that Cyclefree correctly assessed the whole organisation's methods as qualitatively unfit, rather than just extrapolating and extending data from what was already known, or on the public record. It takes an experienced investigator to see the patterns and signs of evasion in an organisation.
It would be astonishing if an organisation that fucks up so massively in several areas is actually brilliant at all the others.
The Met was an obvious clown show to anyone who looked - @Cyclefree simply gave us the reality, often in the very words of the Met themselves.
There was not the slightest chance of her being wrong.
That's not really the issue I was raising ; it was how and why she was right, rather than whether.
It does seem that Cyclefree was right about Cressida Dick and the Met, X 1000.
She, repeatedly, has pointed out the the publicly known facts of the failures of various organisations.
It's hard to be wrong when you are quoting the public record, multiple witnessed accounts and statements of what actually happened.
Indeed. But there also seem to be more scandals emerging about the Met that weren't even on the public record before, as far as I can see it. A catastrophically failing organisation.
Given everything that was publicly known about the Met, what were the chances that all the nasty stuff was visible?
The stuff about recycling officers who were under investigation became public with Tomlinson, for example. If you are using sleight of hand to get officers with er… a heavy hand? on to the riot squad…. That means there must be more corrupt and fucked up idiots being traded like playing cards between forces.
This is correct, but I would say the point I was making was more that Cyclefree correctly assessed the whole organisation's methods as qualitatively unfit, rather than just extrapolating and extending data from what was already known, or on the public record. It takes an experienced investigator to see the patterns and signs of evasion in an organisation.
Yes it does. Thank you. I see the same pattern repeated over and over.
What is happening now in politics is a complete failure to realise what conflicts of interest are, why they are bad and how to avoid them. They are at the heart of most scandals. They are at the heart of all the scandals afflicting this government and until this changes they will carry on happening.
I wish I could be confident that Labour truly understand the problems with conflict of interest. I'm not. The Lib Dems certainly don't.
De rien. Your posts add a lot to the site and keep up the good work.
It does seem that Cyclefree was right about Cressida Dick and the Met, X 1000.
She, repeatedly, has pointed out the the publicly known facts of the failures of various organisations.
It's hard to be wrong when you are quoting the public record, multiple witnessed accounts and statements of what actually happened.
Indeed. But there also seem to be more scandals emerging about the Met that weren't even on the public record before, as far as I can see it. A catastrophically failing organisation.
Given everything that was publicly known about the Met, what were the chances that all the nasty stuff was visible?
The stuff about recycling officers who were under investigation became public with Tomlinson, for example. If you are using sleight of hand to get officers with er… a heavy hand? on to the riot squad…. That means there must be more corrupt and fucked up idiots being traded like playing cards between forces.
This is correct, but I would say the point I was making was more that Cyclefree correctly assessed the whole organisation's methods as qualitatively unfit, rather than just extrapolating and extending data from what was already known, or on the public record. It takes an experienced investigator to see the patterns and signs of evasion in an organisation.
Yes it does. Thank you. I see the same pattern repeated over and over.
What is happening now in politics is a complete failure to realise what conflicts of interest are, why they are bad and how to avoid them. They are at the heart of most scandals. They are at the heart of all the scandals afflicting this government and until this changes they will carry on happening.
I wish I could be confident that Labour truly understand the problems with conflict of interest. I'm not. The Lib Dems certainly don't.
Why should they?
By its nature, politics tends to the chumocracy. As do many other fields. In charity and the arts, 3rd generations inherit work, advancement….
It won’t be pushed back by simply a change in government. It is too easy, too simple to carry on making deals on the sofas… It requires a definite, defined movement against it.
Apparently Tory voters by 49% to 37% want the fat lying oaf back as PM . Really these people should be sterilized so they can’t add more idiocy to the UK gene pool !
Voters overall prefer Sunak to Johnson 37% to 34%, and Remain voters prefer Sunak too.
2019 Conservative voters though yes and Leave voters still prefer Johnson to Sunak
It does seem that Cyclefree was right about Cressida Dick and the Met, X 1000.
She, repeatedly, has pointed out the the publicly known facts of the failures of various organisations.
It's hard to be wrong when you are quoting the public record, multiple witnessed accounts and statements of what actually happened.
Indeed. But there also seem to be more scandals emerging about the Met that weren't even on the public record before, as far as I can see it. A catastrophically failing organisation.
Given everything that was publicly known about the Met, what were the chances that all the nasty stuff was visible?
The stuff about recycling officers who were under investigation became public with Tomlinson, for example. If you are using sleight of hand to get officers with er… a heavy hand? on to the riot squad…. That means there must be more corrupt and fucked up idiots being traded like playing cards between forces.
This is correct, but I would say the point I was making was more that Cyclefree correctly assessed the whole organisation's methods as qualitatively unfit, rather than just extrapolating and extending data from what was already known, or on the public record. It takes an experienced investigator to see the patterns and signs of evasion in an organisation.
It would be astonishing if an organisation that fucks up so massively in several areas is actually brilliant at all the others.
The Met was an obvious clown show to anyone who looked - @Cyclefree simply gave us the reality, often in the very words of the Met themselves.
There was not the slightest chance of her being wrong.
And yet while what I was saying was obvious there were very few - **checks notes** - no politicians saying any of this until right at the very end. Even now I'm not at all sure the politicians really get the scale of the problem, not just at the Met but in our entire police force.
It does seem that Cyclefree was right about Cressida Dick and the Met, X 1000.
She, repeatedly, has pointed out the the publicly known facts of the failures of various organisations.
It's hard to be wrong when you are quoting the public record, multiple witnessed accounts and statements of what actually happened.
Indeed. But there also seem to be more scandals emerging about the Met that weren't even on the public record before, as far as I can see it. A catastrophically failing organisation.
Given everything that was publicly known about the Met, what were the chances that all the nasty stuff was visible?
The stuff about recycling officers who were under investigation became public with Tomlinson, for example. If you are using sleight of hand to get officers with er… a heavy hand? on to the riot squad…. That means there must be more corrupt and fucked up idiots being traded like playing cards between forces.
This is correct, but I would say the point I was making was more that Cyclefree correctly assessed the whole organisation's methods as qualitatively unfit, rather than just extrapolating and extending data from what was already known, or on the public record. It takes an experienced investigator to see the patterns and signs of evasion in an organisation.
Yes it does. Thank you. I see the same pattern repeated over and over.
What is happening now in politics is a complete failure to realise what conflicts of interest are, why they are bad and how to avoid them. They are at the heart of most scandals. They are at the heart of all the scandals afflicting this government and until this changes they will carry on happening.
I wish I could be confident that Labour truly understand the problems with conflict of interest. I'm not. The Lib Dems certainly don't.
Why should they?
By its nature, politics tends to the chumocracy. As do many other fields. In charity and the arts, 3rd generations inherit work, advancement….
It won’t be pushed back by simply a change in government. It is too easy, too simple to carry on making deals on the sofas… It requires a definite, defined movement against it.
It does seem that Cyclefree was right about Cressida Dick and the Met, X 1000.
She, repeatedly, has pointed out the the publicly known facts of the failures of various organisations.
It's hard to be wrong when you are quoting the public record, multiple witnessed accounts and statements of what actually happened.
Indeed. But there also seem to be more scandals emerging about the Met that weren't even on the public record before, as far as I can see it. A catastrophically failing organisation.
Given everything that was publicly known about the Met, what were the chances that all the nasty stuff was visible?
The stuff about recycling officers who were under investigation became public with Tomlinson, for example. If you are using sleight of hand to get officers with er… a heavy hand? on to the riot squad…. That means there must be more corrupt and fucked up idiots being traded like playing cards between forces.
This is correct, but I would say the point I was making was more that Cyclefree correctly assessed the whole organisation's methods as qualitatively unfit, rather than just extrapolating and extending data from what was already known, or on the public record. It takes an experienced investigator to see the patterns and signs of evasion in an organisation.
It would be astonishing if an organisation that fucks up so massively in several areas is actually brilliant at all the others.
The Met was an obvious clown show to anyone who looked - @Cyclefree simply gave us the reality, often in the very words of the Met themselves.
There was not the slightest chance of her being wrong.
And yet while what I was saying was obvious there were very few - **checks notes** - no politicians saying any of this until right at the very end. Even now I'm not at all sure the politicians really get the scale of the problem, not just at the Met but in our entire police force.
"It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It."
Going to war with the Police is considered harmful. Going to war with the whole political system?
It does seem that Cyclefree was right about Cressida Dick and the Met, X 1000.
She, repeatedly, has pointed out the the publicly known facts of the failures of various organisations.
It's hard to be wrong when you are quoting the public record, multiple witnessed accounts and statements of what actually happened.
Indeed. But there also seem to be more scandals emerging about the Met that weren't even on the public record before, as far as I can see it. A catastrophically failing organisation.
Given everything that was publicly known about the Met, what were the chances that all the nasty stuff was visible?
The stuff about recycling officers who were under investigation became public with Tomlinson, for example. If you are using sleight of hand to get officers with er… a heavy hand? on to the riot squad…. That means there must be more corrupt and fucked up idiots being traded like playing cards between forces.
This is correct, but I would say the point I was making was more that Cyclefree correctly assessed the whole organisation's methods as qualitatively unfit, rather than just extrapolating and extending data from what was already known, or on the public record. It takes an experienced investigator to see the patterns and signs of evasion in an organisation.
Yes it does. Thank you. I see the same pattern repeated over and over.
What is happening now in politics is a complete failure to realise what conflicts of interest are, why they are bad and how to avoid them. They are at the heart of most scandals. They are at the heart of all the scandals afflicting this government and until this changes they will carry on happening.
I wish I could be confident that Labour truly understand the problems with conflict of interest. I'm not. The Lib Dems certainly don't.
Why should they?
By its nature, politics tends to the chumocracy. As do many other fields. In charity and the arts, 3rd generations inherit work, advancement….
It won’t be pushed back by simply a change in government. It is too easy, too simple to carry on making deals on the sofas… It requires a definite, defined movement against it.
Can I be the first to start this movement?
I thought you had?
Hooded Man #2: Have we started the fire? Bane: Yes. The fire rises.
With the damage she did and the scandals that are coming out now that she covered up £500k was not nearly enough compensation. We should be suing her for more.
She'd totally screwed up, and failed.
Obviously she needs a better job and a payout. She's one of The New Upper 10,000 - that's what failure means for them.
Mind you, 500K is a bit light for that. Charlie Prince got $91 million for crashing CITI (and nearly the whole financial system). He whined for years about how small his payout was.
In other sacked people news:
Monday's Telegraph: PM 'sacked Zahawi without a fair hearing'
About as plausible as that bath story they did on Saturday.
Classic take from them though. It's the same with anyone caught wrongdoing, no matter what process there is they will always claim it was not fair. In this case at best Zahawi admitted to a level of incompetence with money that led to him having to pay millions, and that should be disqualifying for anyone in a Cabinet post anyway. Much more plausibly he was caught out on a historic attempt to dodge what he owed.
There's no explanation Zahawi could offer that should have resulted in anything other than a sacking, since he deserved that even if everything is as he is now claiming it was. So a whinge about the process, obviously for benefit of the large recalcitrant wing of the party, is just pathetic.
What is this 'fair hearing', process stuff anyway ? The process (in Zahawi's case) is saying "you're sacked", and that's about it. No such thing as unfair dismissal for such political appointments.
But he's a member of the Upper 10,000
He needs a seven figure payout and a better job - that's his right.
It does seem that Cyclefree was right about Cressida Dick and the Met, X 1000.
She, repeatedly, has pointed out the the publicly known facts of the failures of various organisations.
It's hard to be wrong when you are quoting the public record, multiple witnessed accounts and statements of what actually happened.
Indeed. But there also seem to be more scandals emerging about the Met that weren't even on the public record before, as far as I can see it. A catastrophically failing organisation.
Given everything that was publicly known about the Met, what were the chances that all the nasty stuff was visible?
The stuff about recycling officers who were under investigation became public with Tomlinson, for example. If you are using sleight of hand to get officers with er… a heavy hand? on to the riot squad…. That means there must be more corrupt and fucked up idiots being traded like playing cards between forces.
This is correct, but I would say the point I was making was more that Cyclefree correctly assessed the whole organisation's methods as qualitatively unfit, rather than just extrapolating and extending data from what was already known, or on the public record. It takes an experienced investigator to see the patterns and signs of evasion in an organisation.
It would be astonishing if an organisation that fucks up so massively in several areas is actually brilliant at all the others.
The Met was an obvious clown show to anyone who looked - @Cyclefree simply gave us the reality, often in the very words of the Met themselves.
There was not the slightest chance of her being wrong.
And yet while what I was saying was obvious there were very few - **checks notes** - no politicians saying any of this until right at the very end. Even now I'm not at all sure the politicians really get the scale of the problem, not just at the Met but in our entire police force.
"It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It."
Going to war with the Police is considered harmful. Going to war with the whole political system?
Everybody's on the take. Conservative majority culture. Needs stamping out. A Labour government which does bugger all except insist you can't enrich yourself on the public dime is reason enough for a change of government.
The culture of entitlement to payouts and better jobs for failure goes way back.
Sharon Shoesmith wanted (and got) a big payout for being responsible for the death of Baby P, for example.
When I become UnDictator, those who fail will have a different role in public service provided for them. Providing shade - see Crassus and Vlad The Impaler.
Everybody's on the take. Conservative majority culture. Needs stamping out. A Labour government which does bugger all except insist you can't enrich yourself on the public dime is reason enough for a change of government.
The culture of entitlement to payouts and better jobs for failure goes way back.
Sharon Shoesmith wanted (and got) a big payout for being responsible for the death of Baby P, for example.
When I become UnDictator, those who fail will have a different role in public service provided for them. Providing shade - see Crassus and Vlad The Impaler.
I forgot Sharon Shoesmitn personally tortured that baby….you Tory misinformationers….you try to draw equivalence when there isn’t fucking any…..
Cressida Dick didn’t personally shoot Jean Charles de Menezes or hire Wayne Couzens. She is still responsible for what happened, as if she had been doing her job properly it wouldn’t have happened.
Palmerston was also of course the last non Tory PM to win 3 consecutive general election majorities before Blair
No he didn't. He became leader of two four party coalitions which had a majority, before finally winning a majority of his own under the new Liberal Party (which merged three of them) in 1865.
Palmerston was also of course the last non Tory PM to win 3 consecutive general election majorities before Blair
No he didn't. He became leader of two four party coalitions which had a majority, before finally winning a majority of his own under the new Liberal Party (which merged three of them) in 1865.
Yes he did.
He won a majority as Whig leader in 1857 and majorities as Liberal leader in 1859 and 1865
Palmerston was also of course the last non Tory PM to win 3 consecutive general election majorities before Blair
No he didn't. He became leader of two four party coalitions which had a majority, before finally winning a majority of his own under the new Liberal Party (which merged three of them) in 1865.
Yes he did.
He won a majority as Whig leader in 1857 and majorities as Liberal leader in 1859 and 1865
The Whigs did not win a majority in 1857. In fact, the last time they won a majority was in 1832. The 1857 majority included around 70 Peelites and 20 radicals as well as the Irish.
The Liberal Party didn't even exist until *after* the 1859 election.
Wikipedia is wrong on this, as so often, because the election articles in the 19th century are edited by somebody who doesn't understand the dynamic of the topic.
Palmerston was also of course the last non Tory PM to win 3 consecutive general election majorities before Blair
No he didn't. He became leader of two four party coalitions which had a majority, before finally winning a majority of his own under the new Liberal Party (which merged three of them) in 1865.
Yes he did.
He won a majority as Whig leader in 1857 and majorities as Liberal leader in 1859 and 1865
The Whigs did not win a majority in 1857. In fact, the last time they won a majority was in 1832. The 1857 majority included around 70 Peelites and 20 radicals as well as the Irish.
The Liberal Party didn't even exist until *after* the 1859 election.
Wikipedia is wrong on this, as so often, because the election articles in the 19th century are edited by somebody who doesn't understand the dynamic of the topic.
Regardless through Peelites and radicals and Irish Nationalists weren't then Tories either.
So you could still say Palmerston was the last PM to win most seats and a non Tory majority at 3 consecutive general elections before Blair
Palmerston was also of course the last non Tory PM to win 3 consecutive general election majorities before Blair
No he didn't. He became leader of two four party coalitions which had a majority, before finally winning a majority of his own under the new Liberal Party (which merged three of them) in 1865.
Yes he did.
He won a majority as Whig leader in 1857 and majorities as Liberal leader in 1859 and 1865
The Whigs did not win a majority in 1857. In fact, the last time they won a majority was in 1832. The 1857 majority included around 70 Peelites and 20 radicals as well as the Irish.
The Liberal Party didn't even exist until *after* the 1859 election.
Wikipedia is wrong on this, as so often, because the election articles in the 19th century are edited by somebody who doesn't understand the dynamic of the topic.
Regardless through Peelites and radicals and Irish Nationalists weren't then Tories either.
So you could still say Palmerston was the last PM to win most seats and a non Tory majority at 3 consecutive general elections before Blair
No you couldn’t. And in any case, that’s not what you said.
With the damage she did and the scandals that are coming out now that she covered up £500k was not nearly enough compensation. We should be suing her for more.
She'd totally screwed up, and failed.
Obviously she needs a better job and a payout. She's one of The New Upper 10,000 - that's what failure means for them.
Mind you, 500K is a bit light for that. Charlie Prince got $91 million for crashing CITI (and nearly the whole financial system). He whined for years about how small his payout was.
In other sacked people news:
Monday's Telegraph: PM 'sacked Zahawi without a fair hearing'
About as plausible as that bath story they did on Saturday.
Classic take from them though. It's the same with anyone caught wrongdoing, no matter what process there is they will always claim it was not fair. In this case at best Zahawi admitted to a level of incompetence with money that led to him having to pay millions, and that should be disqualifying for anyone in a Cabinet post anyway. Much more plausibly he was caught out on a historic attempt to dodge what he owed.
There's no explanation Zahawi could offer that should have resulted in anything other than a sacking, since he deserved that even if everything is as he is now claiming it was. So a whinge about the process, obviously for benefit of the large recalcitrant wing of the party, is just pathetic.
I agree - so why did Sunak try to pretend that there was an independent process upon which he was going to base his decision?
Palmerston was also of course the last non Tory PM to win 3 consecutive general election majorities before Blair
No he didn't. He became leader of two four party coalitions which had a majority, before finally winning a majority of his own under the new Liberal Party (which merged three of them) in 1865.
Yes he did.
He won a majority as Whig leader in 1857 and majorities as Liberal leader in 1859 and 1865
The Whigs did not win a majority in 1857. In fact, the last time they won a majority was in 1832. The 1857 majority included around 70 Peelites and 20 radicals as well as the Irish.
The Liberal Party didn't even exist until *after* the 1859 election.
Wikipedia is wrong on this, as so often, because the election articles in the 19th century are edited by somebody who doesn't understand the dynamic of the topic.
Regardless through Peelites and radicals and Irish Nationalists weren't then Tories either.
So you could still say Palmerston was the last PM to win most seats and a non Tory majority at 3 consecutive general elections before Blair
No you couldn’t. And in any case, that’s not what you said.
Yes you could. The Whigs and Liberals won most seats in 1857, 1859 and 1865 all led by Palmerston.
No other non Tory PM and party leader won most seats at 3 consecutive general elections after Palmerston until Blair
Palmerston was also of course the last non Tory PM to win 3 consecutive general election majorities before Blair
No he didn't. He became leader of two four party coalitions which had a majority, before finally winning a majority of his own under the new Liberal Party (which merged three of them) in 1865.
Yes he did.
He won a majority as Whig leader in 1857 and majorities as Liberal leader in 1859 and 1865
The Whigs did not win a majority in 1857. In fact, the last time they won a majority was in 1832. The 1857 majority included around 70 Peelites and 20 radicals as well as the Irish.
The Liberal Party didn't even exist until *after* the 1859 election.
Wikipedia is wrong on this, as so often, because the election articles in the 19th century are edited by somebody who doesn't understand the dynamic of the topic.
Regardless through Peelites and radicals and Irish Nationalists weren't then Tories either.
So you could still say Palmerston was the last PM to win most seats and a non Tory majority at 3 consecutive general elections before Blair
No you couldn’t. And in any case, that’s not what you said.
Yes you could. The Whigs and Liberals won most seats in 1857, 1859 and 1865 all led by Palmerston.
No other non Tory PM and party leader won most seats at 3 consecutive general elections after Palmerston until Blair
You could say it, but you would be wrong.
As I have patiently explained to you.
But then, you frequently are and it doesn’t seem to bother you.
Comments
I’d share your sympathy had he not been complicit in the Johnson saga until almost the end.
That day will yet come - but for now it is time to step aside and let the Labour Party take our great country forward.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/29/revealed-cressida-dick-sought-500000-to-quit-as-met-chief
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1619793905171714048
Cookie's familiarity with places I grew up his housing, holidays and similar life is one - a close mirror to me on the political right. That I can narrow Slade down to a village based on his restaurant choices (and the reorganization of my kids' activities means I pass a good few hours a week in or to and from the said village).
And this. My late father settled his football allegiances in the late 40s, early 50s, breaking with the City allegiance of his much older brothers, who had followed their father pre war. Whilst growing up about 5 miles from Old Trafford in a family that in that generation had strong, present Welsh ancestry and an affinity for the Conwy coast - one branch of the family retired there. Whatever the truth of it, I can almost picture Big_G's allegiances forming in strange parallel, in a similar family, in a similar town, for the exact same reasons
as my own father's journey.
He is weak and he's an opportunist.
Guangzhou is a chemical weapons plant masquerading as a fertilizer plant. We know this. The Chinese know that we know. But we make believe that we don't know and the Chinese make believe that they believe that we don't know, but know that we know. Everybody knows.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/01/the-surge-marjorie-taylor-greene-vp-trump.html
It’s no as though Republican voters haven’t previously shown themselves mad enough.
I suspect you are thinking about someone else
Edit: out of curiosity given I’ve barely posted this year (been commuting between the US, Poland and Germany) you seem strangely antagonistic
https://twitter.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1619799722725896192?s=46&t=3iLLuwq6bYK2vvj3lXZKdw
Targets are too wide and varied to be a foreign attack. Feels more like the sabotage on Russian sites over the last year.
EDIT: or maybe not. This looks fairly clear cut
https://twitter.com/wsj/status/1619715753531285506?s=46&t=XN76u0718w3OvHR0RZtGLw
Ah - perhaps Israel the most likely then, as thought. Netanyahu is mad.
Obviously she needs a better job and a payout. She's one of The New Upper 10,000 - that's what failure means for them.
Mind you, 500K is a bit light for that. Charlie Prince got $91 million for crashing CITI (and nearly the whole financial system). He whined for years about how small his payout was.
MTG is a real possibility, mad though it might seem, if Trump is the nominee.
It's hard to be wrong when you are quoting the public record, multiple witnessed accounts and statements of what actually happened.
Monday's Telegraph: PM 'sacked Zahawi without a fair hearing'
https://twitter.com/TmorrowsPapers/status/1619823945082888193
About as plausible as that bath story they did on Saturday.
Conservative majority culture.
Needs stamping out.
A Labour government which does bugger all except insist you can't enrich yourself on the public dime is reason enough for a change of government.
Now do you have evidence or just smears?
There's no explanation Zahawi could offer that should have resulted in anything other than a sacking, since he deserved that even if everything is as he is now claiming it was. So a whinge about the process, obviously for benefit of the large recalcitrant wing of the party, is just pathetic.
https://twitter.com/lucyhunterb/status/1619795786161852417
The stuff about recycling officers who were under investigation became public with Tomlinson, for example. If you are using sleight of hand to get officers with er… a heavy hand? on to the riot squad…. That means there must be more corrupt and fucked up idiots being traded like playing cards between forces.
But Braverman? There are definitely others in the party just as keen to stop the boats. If she needed rewarding she could have been given another Cabinet post, with the rational explanation that he could welcome her back but not to the same role so soon after what she herself had said about why she left.
He lost a lot of goodwill from people who are persuadable to return to Tory support, or at least contemplate giving them a chance.
The process (in Zahawi's case) is saying "you're sacked", and that's about it.
No such thing as unfair dismissal for such political appointments.
Sharon Shoesmith wanted (and got) a big payout for being responsible for the death of Baby P, for example.
When I become UnDictator, those who fail will have a different role in public service provided for them. Providing shade - see Crassus and Vlad The Impaler.
Thank you for your comments on my article, both pro and con. I found your points interesting and several were useable, which I hope to incorporate into the longer version (you will be properly credited). I will address your points more fully at a later date. Once again, thank you for your replies.
Here are some YouTubes. More journalistic pieces will follow later
CaspianReport
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0mvNfkx210 - Poland's strategy of the Intermarium
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djQUf9C82aU - Poland to double the size of its military
Perun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSPhOWDkcPk - Ukraine's vital ally - Why Poland matters in the Russian-Ukrainian war
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrbaAKZfjwg - Polish military modernisation & why are they buying Korean tanks? (with @TheChieftainsHatch)
Warographics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrZLEf8wZJs - Is Poland Europe's Next Military Superpower? A Look at the Country's Growing Defense Capabilities
Task & Purpose
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihdqQwz_-L0 - What if Poland Was Dragged into the War in Ukraine?
VisualPolitik EN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJWqwnkQJd4 - How is Poland preparing for war against Russia?
Sunak cannot win. Wait for the smoking gun and be called weak for not acting sooner, but also be called unfair for...I'm actually not sure exactly.
Violent men already in the women's estate won't be moved out and it is only men convicted of very serious violence against women who will be kept out while they urgently review a policy which has been under review since 2018. Women will still have to put up with slightly less violent men. And men convicted of very serious violence against other men, presumably on the basis that such men have some sort of chivalric code which means they cannot possibly be a threat to women.
Perhaps this time the Scottish Prison Service will consult women and do an equality impact assessment, neither of which were done previously it seems.
Amazing what a bit of bad publicity will panic a politician into doing.
Was he a genius writer whose sprawling fantasy worlds have delighted millions of readers and filmgoers? Or an evil, reactionary, woman-hating possible racist?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/LTV50NHmLbxXNK9qNt5Yc6/jrr-tolkien-sensational-scribe-or-lady-hating-orc-wrangler
(For what it is worth I'd say Tolkein was a superlative worldbuilder rather than a genius writer - and after reading descriptions in Unfinished Tales about his scribbling important details down on random papers, he was also in desperate need of an ideas notebook to carry round with him)
She was guilty like Cressida Dick for the failure of her organisation. Maybe more so.
She also spent lots of time persecuting the young lady actually trying to save baby Peters life. Via administrative investigation on bullshit charges.
And complained in memos about said lady always banging on about the child she thought was being abused….
And complained that she didn’t get the payout she felt she was due.
Not sure why you want to die on that hill.
The corrupt practise of the better job and the payout is something I’ve been highlighting for decades.
The whole lot of them need to be trying to get a background check pas for being a taxi driver. And failing.
If you think that a change in government will change the practise, then your disappointment will be swift.
What is happening now in politics is a complete failure to realise what conflicts of interest are, why they are bad and how to avoid them. They are at the heart of most scandals. They are at the heart of all the scandals afflicting this government and until this changes they will carry on happening.
I wish I could be confident that Labour truly understand the problems with conflict of interest. I'm not. The Lib Dems certainly don't.
I note with some amazement that your response was your second ever comment, the first being in [checks notes] 2015. I am oddly touched, thank you.
The Met was an obvious clown show to anyone who looked - @Cyclefree simply gave us the reality, often in the very words of the Met themselves.
There was not the slightest chance of her being wrong.
I hope I am wrong. But reality tells me it will happen.
By its nature, politics tends to the chumocracy. As do many other fields. In charity and the arts, 3rd generations inherit work, advancement….
It won’t be pushed back by simply a change in government. It is too easy, too simple to carry on making deals on the sofas… It requires a definite, defined movement against it.
2019 Conservative voters though yes and Leave voters still prefer Johnson to Sunak
https://twitter.com/TLDRNewsUK/status/1619741991407095809?s=20&t=VuysHzejZDpfxJVvGEXRyw
Going to war with the Police is considered harmful. Going to war with the whole political system?
Hooded Man #2: Have we started the fire?
Bane: Yes. The fire rises.
He needs a seven figure payout and a better job - that's his right.
As was Shoesmith. Or indeed Spielman.
He won a majority as Whig leader in 1857 and majorities as Liberal leader in 1859 and 1865
The Liberal Party didn't even exist until *after* the 1859 election.
Wikipedia is wrong on this, as so often, because the election articles in the 19th century are edited by somebody who doesn't understand the dynamic of the topic.
So you could still say Palmerston was the last PM to win most seats and a non Tory majority at 3 consecutive general elections before Blair
No other non Tory PM and party leader won most seats at 3 consecutive general elections after Palmerston until Blair
As I have patiently explained to you.
But then, you frequently are and it doesn’t seem to bother you.