@christopherhope 20s 👀 Boris Johnson has kept hold of his personal mobile phone from before May 2021 and has not surrendered it to the Covid-19 inquiry. What messages are on it? This covers a 15 month period from the start of the pandemic in February 2020.
Because he replaced his phone and phone number in May 2021 when it was discovered that the number had been publicly available for 15 years and a number of people published the number.
Bozo being Bozo he also screwed up the transfer of WhatsApp messages from the old phone to his new one - which is why none prior to May 2021 exist.
This is old known news but it's remarkable how many people seem to have forgotten it.
TBF, as I mentioned a year or so ago, I failed to transfer messages and groups on Whatsapp between two phones. And I'm fairly technically literate.
It takes a spectacularly talented government to get into a fight with an Inquiry that it set up itself.
On the face of it it does seem a strange course to take but apparently the cabinet office is concerned about the provision of what's app information that is simply irrelevant and no doubt embarrassing
It is easy to target Sunak as that is politics but into today's social media world I assume all kinds of unexpected consequences could flow not just for politicians but also civil servants and others
A judicial review is a way to define the provision of social media information to not only this enquiry but future ones too
It does not look good but the government's lawyers must have decided that unrelated privacy is a principle that needs testing
“It does not look good but the government's lawyers must have decided that unrelated privacy is a principle that needs testing”
well they would say that wouldn’t they.
Meanwhile previous top civil servants, no longer being told what to do by the political masters are saying it’s a cover up, and non government lawyers are predicting government lose in court. Meanwhile UK media turns into a “fuckmule” of speculation, leaks, you may think that I couldn’t possibly comment - meaning this isn’t a decision taken lightly by Sunak, he desperately needs to buy himself some time before the truth comes out.
You will not be surprised that I do not agree with you
It seems that Johnson has withheld information from the cabinet office as it only includes the period from May 21 when Johnson acquired a new phone and not before then
Of course you and others want Sunak compromised on this but maybe wait for more information first
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
If government ministers fuck up in spectacular fashion there must be a mechanism for holding them to account. Public Inquiry is our method of choice, and the inquiry must have access to the facts, including the communications.
I think they’re more likely to spectacularly fuck up if they’re terrified to communicate.
You end up with Theresa May-type characters proliferating.
On the contrary, I think 'act like this is going to be read by the public' is a good way to run Government. We need high standards in public life.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
Sigh.
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
No need for a sigh, @Malmesbury . My post was in response to HYUFD's simplistic post which stated "After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century"
Now I guess that one could ask "by what definition", but on a number of levels it is wrong. I am British with Irish ancestry, brought up a Catholic, though no longer "practicing" (and therefore not getting better at it). The reality is that there is an inbuilt cultural prejudice in this country toward Catholicism that goes all the way back to the reformation, combined (and possibly connected) with a prejudice that believes Irish people are backward and stupid. Hence my post, so forgive me for my violent Irish nature that comes to the fore when I see ignorant simplistic crap written about Ireland.
On what level was it wrong? Certainly from about the 1930s to 1990s the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe after the Vatican City, probably even more so than Italy and Spain. Though now Poland has overtaken it as Ireland has become more socially liberal and the Poles removed Communist atheist rule
Define "most" please? What are your criteria?
From 1950 to 1970 more people in the Republic of Ireland probably attended Mass than any other European nation, the Catholic church controlled Irish Schools and morality, orphanages and adoptions and the Irish government was heavily linked to it. Not only abortion and homosexuality but divorce too was illegal in the Republic of Ireland in that time
You said the enquiry must have access to the facts including communications but just where is the line to be drawn when those communications also include many irrelevant conversations
The line can only be drawn by the Inquiry
Maybe that will be the result of the judicial review but I wait with interest their decision
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
Sigh.
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
No need for a sigh, @Malmesbury . My post was in response to HYUFD's simplistic post which stated "After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century"
Now I guess that one could ask "by what definition", but on a number of levels it is wrong. I am British with Irish ancestry, brought up a Catholic, though no longer "practicing" (and therefore not getting better at it). The reality is that there is an inbuilt cultural prejudice in this country toward Catholicism that goes all the way back to the reformation, combined (and possibly connected) with a prejudice that believes Irish people are backward and stupid. Hence my post, so forgive me for my violent Irish nature that comes to the fore when I see ignorant simplistic crap written about Ireland.
On what level was it wrong? Certainly from about the 1930s to 1990s the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe after the Vatican City, probably even more so than Italy and Spain. Though now Poland has overtaken it as Ireland has become more socially liberal and the Poles removed Communist atheist rule
Define "most" please? What are your criteria?
From 1950 to 1970 more people in the Republic of Ireland probably attended Mass than any other European nation, the Catholic church controlled Irish Schools and morality, orphanages and adoptions and the Irish government was heavily linked to it. Not only abortion and homosexuality but divorce too was illegal in the Republic of Ireland in that time
I think that's extremely unlikely given how small Ireland's population was relative to Spain / Italy / etc
@christopherhope 20s 👀 Boris Johnson has kept hold of his personal mobile phone from before May 2021 and has not surrendered it to the Covid-19 inquiry. What messages are on it? This covers a 15 month period from the start of the pandemic in February 2020.
Because he replaced his phone and phone number in May 2021 when it was discovered that the number had been publicly available for 15 years and a number of people published the number.
Bozo being Bozo he also screwed up the transfer of WhatsApp messages from the old phone to his new one - which is why none prior to May 2021 exist.
This is old known news but it's remarkable how many people seem to have forgotten it.
TBF, as I mentioned a year or so ago, I failed to transfer messages and groups on Whatsapp between two phones. And I'm fairly technically literate.
Presumably I'm unusual then in taking the opportunity of a new phone to easily delete all historic Whatsapp messages by deliberately not transferring them across? (Contacts come across as I keep the number, but why do I need to know that 3 years ago last week my wife messaged 'what do you want for dinner'...)
The reason the government, and the Cabinet Office, are in trouble over this is pretty obvious.
Anybody who thinks the current regime, and its predecessor under BJ, can be trusted to decide what is, and what isn't, relevant to the Covid Inquiry must be out of their mind. Hallett clearly isn't.
At what point in my life does the BBC offer me a presenting gig on a train documentary?
When do you expect to be a defeated Tory MP?
You have to be a defeated Tory Cabinet Minister and likely leadership contender and most watched defeat on election night, being a mere defeated Tory MP is not enough to get the training presenting and travel and history docs gig.
Ideally you then want to go on a 'journey' trying to become more appealing to urban liberals but unfortunately that then turns off your former party as you are no longer the darling of the Thatcherite, anti EU right. However it does make you a possible contender to present on the BBC and be acceptable as a dinner party companion in Islington and Hampstead
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
Sigh.
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
No need for a sigh, @Malmesbury . My post was in response to HYUFD's simplistic post which stated "After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century"
Now I guess that one could ask "by what definition", but on a number of levels it is wrong. I am British with Irish ancestry, brought up a Catholic, though no longer "practicing" (and therefore not getting better at it). The reality is that there is an inbuilt cultural prejudice in this country toward Catholicism that goes all the way back to the reformation, combined (and possibly connected) with a prejudice that believes Irish people are backward and stupid. Hence my post, so forgive me for my violent Irish nature that comes to the fore when I see ignorant simplistic crap written about Ireland.
On what level was it wrong? Certainly from about the 1930s to 1990s the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe after the Vatican City, probably even more so than Italy and Spain. Though now Poland has overtaken it as Ireland has become more socially liberal and the Poles removed Communist atheist rule
Define "most" please? What are your criteria?
From 1950 to 1970 more people in the Republic of Ireland probably attended Mass than any other European nation, the Catholic church controlled Irish Schools and morality, orphanages and adoptions and the Irish government was heavily linked to it. Not only abortion and homosexuality but divorce too was illegal in the Republic of Ireland in that time
I think that's extremely unlikely given how small Ireland's population was relative to Spain / Italy / etc
Percentage wise I stand by it, outside of the Vatican city the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe even 50 years ago
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
Sigh.
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
No need for a sigh, @Malmesbury . My post was in response to HYUFD's simplistic post which stated "After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century"
Now I guess that one could ask "by what definition", but on a number of levels it is wrong. I am British with Irish ancestry, brought up a Catholic, though no longer "practicing" (and therefore not getting better at it). The reality is that there is an inbuilt cultural prejudice in this country toward Catholicism that goes all the way back to the reformation, combined (and possibly connected) with a prejudice that believes Irish people are backward and stupid. Hence my post, so forgive me for my violent Irish nature that comes to the fore when I see ignorant simplistic crap written about Ireland.
Wow cry my a river a lot more prejudice against us pagans....only fairly recently we can admit it
Spain has always had notoriously low rates of Church attendance. By far the lowest in Europe in the 19th Century. It is highlighted in Beevor's Spanish Civil War.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
At what point in my life does the BBC offer me a presenting gig on a train documentary?
When do you expect to be a defeated Tory MP?
You have to be a defeated Tory Cabinet Minister and likely leadership contender and most watched defeat on election night, being a mere defeated Tory MP is not enough to get the training presenting and travel and history docs gig.
Ideally you then want to go on a 'journey' trying to become more appealing to urban liberals but unfortunately that then turns off your former party as you are no longer the darling of the Thatcherite, anti EU right. However it does make you a possible contender to present on the BBC and be acceptable as a dinner party companion in Islington and Hampstead
A vast collection of garish trousers might help too.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
If government ministers fuck up in spectacular fashion there must be a mechanism for holding them to account. Public Inquiry is our method of choice, and the inquiry must have access to the facts, including the communications.
Ministers are accountable to parliament and the electorate. Public inquiries are not our method of choice for things like this.
The government set the Terms of Reference and appointed the lead judge.
What's the point of fixing an enquiry if it finds out what you want hidden?
The reason the government, and the Cabinet Office, are in trouble over this is pretty obvious.
Anybody who thinks the current regime, and its predecessor under BJ, can be trusted to decide what is, and what isn't, relevant to the Covid Inquiry must be out of their mind. Hallett clearly isn't.
It seems a whole lot of what's app messages from Johnson have disappeared remarkably at the time he announced the enquiry
Indeed the cabinet office have confirmed Johnson’s information is incomplete
Cabinet Office say; "The request for unambiguously irrelevant material goes beyond the powers of the Inquiry. Individuals, junior officials, current and former Ministers and departments should not be required to provide material that is irrelevant to the Inquiry’s work."
it is for the inquiry, not the cabinet Office, to determine what material is relevant
Just you wait for information within to leak. Or rumours of what information is in the trawl to swirl.
And yes, I know it's an inquiry, and we *should* be able to trust everyone on it. But it also seems like a very broad fishing attempt.
It definitely comes out, but now it comes out in the worst possible way for Sunak, uncontrolled, unspun, and any upon unsuspecting afternoon, like when he’s on the other side of the world in the Bali or Hawaii junket.
It must be really bad for Sunak to push him to these lengths.
Everyone is assuming that it is the politicians blocking this, on their own.
Given the results of the "Parties" enquiry in Downing Street, I can very easily see Civil Servants not wanting message groups they were a part of published.
I was told, a long while back, that some civil servants were up in arms because, during COVID, they were told to do A. They decided to B instead. The upset was that the ministers responsible were refusing to take responsibility for decision B.
Whether Rishi is covering for the Cabinet Office, or the Cabinet Office is covering for Rishi, or a bit of both, the information still needs to be disclosed fully.
Yes it does.
The problem is that it is undoubtedly mixed up in personal and semi-personal messages.
Which brings up the recent humiliation of Matt Hancock - who handed his WhatsApp messages to a journalist who promptly published everything embarrassing.
The answer is, of course, to ban usage of personal communications in government.
@christopherhope 20s 👀 Boris Johnson has kept hold of his personal mobile phone from before May 2021 and has not surrendered it to the Covid-19 inquiry. What messages are on it? This covers a 15 month period from the start of the pandemic in February 2020.
Because he replaced his phone and phone number in May 2021 when it was discovered that the number had been publicly available for 15 years and a number of people published the number.
Bozo being Bozo he also screwed up the transfer of WhatsApp messages from the old phone to his new one - which is why none prior to May 2021 exist.
This is old known news but it's remarkable how many people seem to have forgotten it.
Is this a rare case of effective MoD procurement ?
Credit where credit is due. The UK programme to upgrade and increase the M270 GMLRS fleet to 71 launchers is well on track, on time and on budget. It’s an exemplar of a well run DE&S project. Extended range rockets will hit targets at 150 km while PrSM will initially reach 499 km and later 999 km. https://twitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/1664151551718375426
The rest of the department will be bloody furious at someone showing everyone that it is possible to hit targets and budgets.
The rest of the whole system of government you mean.
There was a guided bomb program in the US, a few years back. I forget the designation. One of the contractors produced a brilliant design that was cheap, had lots of range and could even do things not on the spec. The other, competing design was shit.
The problem was that the second design was by the company that was supposed to win the contract. They cancelled the contract and re-competed it twice to try and getting the winning design to lose.
Or the Gulf War 1 bunker buster. During that war, the US needed a deep penetrator munition. They got old artillery barrels, filled them with explosives (*), and lo and behold, they had a bunker-buster, developed quickly and cheaply. Later versions of the weapon used customised casings and were far more expensive.
"The GBU-28 is unique in that time between the finalized design being approved to its first use in combat test took only two weeks between the 13th and 27th of February 1991"
That didn’t upset the system. After the war, a proper, expensive contract with the usual suspects manufactured some proper GBU-28s
Incidentally, some claim that the deployment of the GBU-28 was so rapid that the casing was still warm from the explosive casting, for the first combat drop.
I've just immediately regretted looking into the tragic deaths off Bournemouth on Twitter. All sorts of conspiracy nonsense.
I do wonder if the police/press take the right approach too though - it does seem bizarrely cryptic in how it is being reported, and already people are leaping on it as in the Nicola Bulley case.
@christopherhope 20s 👀 Boris Johnson has kept hold of his personal mobile phone from before May 2021 and has not surrendered it to the Covid-19 inquiry. What messages are on it? This covers a 15 month period from the start of the pandemic in February 2020.
Because he replaced his phone and phone number in May 2021 when it was discovered that the number had been publicly available for 15 years and a number of people published the number.
Bozo being Bozo he also screwed up the transfer of WhatsApp messages from the old phone to his new one - which is why none prior to May 2021 exist.
This is old known news but it's remarkable how many people seem to have forgotten it.
It's a rather Rebekkah Vardy style defence!
The bit that is a bit fiddly is transferring the old messages to a new phone with a new number.
Setting up on a new phone with the same number is trivial
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
Sigh.
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
No need for a sigh, @Malmesbury . My post was in response to HYUFD's simplistic post which stated "After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century"
Now I guess that one could ask "by what definition", but on a number of levels it is wrong. I am British with Irish ancestry, brought up a Catholic, though no longer "practicing" (and therefore not getting better at it). The reality is that there is an inbuilt cultural prejudice in this country toward Catholicism that goes all the way back to the reformation, combined (and possibly connected) with a prejudice that believes Irish people are backward and stupid. Hence my post, so forgive me for my violent Irish nature that comes to the fore when I see ignorant simplistic crap written about Ireland.
On what level was it wrong? Certainly from about the 1930s to 1990s the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe after the Vatican City, probably even more so than Italy and Spain. Though now Poland has overtaken it as Ireland has become more socially liberal and the Poles removed Communist atheist rule
Define "most" please? What are your criteria?
From 1950 to 1970 more people in the Republic of Ireland probably attended Mass than any other European nation, the Catholic church controlled Irish Schools and morality, orphanages and adoptions and the Irish government was heavily linked to it. Not only abortion and homosexuality but divorce too was illegal in the Republic of Ireland in that time
I think that's extremely unlikely given how small Ireland's population was relative to Spain / Italy / etc
Percentage wise I stand by it, outside of the Vatican city the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe even 50 years ago
That's only because the other lot went in for partition based on religion. The UK was a whole lot less Catholic and a lot more Protestant as a result.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No indeed. Why can't the messages be reviewed by the Inquiry chair, and her alone? She can redact irrelevant sensitive data for the wider Inquiry team and for public consumption.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
I imagine there's a planner somewhere in the West who's job it is to try to work out how many people would die if NATO decided to just get rid of Putin. I'm almost certain that any conclusions would finish up being the wrong answer (Russia is simply losing the long game), but it's very scary how weak Russia looks, and thus how enticing the opportunity might be for madness.
Happily the Chinese would have most to win in pretty much all situations, so we can sleep easy. (I'm safer in my sleep because of China rather than NATO - I think it might be true!)
@christopherhope 20s 👀 Boris Johnson has kept hold of his personal mobile phone from before May 2021 and has not surrendered it to the Covid-19 inquiry. What messages are on it? This covers a 15 month period from the start of the pandemic in February 2020.
Because he replaced his phone and phone number in May 2021 when it was discovered that the number had been publicly available for 15 years and a number of people published the number.
Bozo being Bozo he also screwed up the transfer of WhatsApp messages from the old phone to his new one - which is why none prior to May 2021 exist.
This is old known news but it's remarkable how many people seem to have forgotten it.
It's a rather Rebekkah Vardy style defence!
The bit that is a bit fiddly is transferring the old messages to a new phone with a new number.
Setting up on a new phone with the same number is trivial
Of course, if all the staff handed over their WhatsApp messages then the conversations would be visible, unless Johnson was only conversing with himself.
I wonder if Cummings has complied. Are former staff part of this haul of evidence?
I've just immediately regretted looking into the tragic deaths off Bournemouth on Twitter. All sorts of conspiracy nonsense.
I do wonder if the police/press take the right approach too though - it does seem bizarrely cryptic in how it is being reported, and already people are leaping on it as in the Nicola Bulley case.
The police should have just said nothing at all, instead of - as you say - issuing the weird statements that they have.
I've just immediately regretted looking into the tragic deaths off Bournemouth on Twitter. All sorts of conspiracy nonsense.
I do wonder if the police/press take the right approach too though - it does seem bizarrely cryptic in how it is being reported, and already people are leaping on it as in the Nicola Bulley case.
I agree
They have ruled out jet skis but eye witnesses suggested some of the swimmers found themselves under the pier with tragic consequences
That recently happened to a young female paddleboarded who got trapped under Conwy jetty and could not be saved
I assume the wash of a speedboat or a pleasure boat disturbed the water, but it is only my own thoughts and could be totally wrong
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No indeed. Why can't the messages be reviewed by the Inquiry chair, and her alone? She can redact irrelevant sensitive data for the wider Inquiry team and for public consumption.
@christopherhope 20s 👀 Boris Johnson has kept hold of his personal mobile phone from before May 2021 and has not surrendered it to the Covid-19 inquiry. What messages are on it? This covers a 15 month period from the start of the pandemic in February 2020.
Because he replaced his phone and phone number in May 2021 when it was discovered that the number had been publicly available for 15 years and a number of people published the number.
Bozo being Bozo he also screwed up the transfer of WhatsApp messages from the old phone to his new one - which is why none prior to May 2021 exist.
This is old known news but it's remarkable how many people seem to have forgotten it.
It's a rather Rebekkah Vardy style defence!
The bit that is a bit fiddly is transferring the old messages to a new phone with a new number.
Setting up on a new phone with the same number is trivial
Of course, if all the staff handed over their WhatsApp messages then the conversations would be visible, unless Johnson was only conversing with himself.
I wonder if Cummings has complied. Are former staff part of this haul of evidence?
Yes, I was wondering who else had been instructed to hand over their messages. The whole affair is bizarre in many ways.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
Sigh.
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
No need for a sigh, @Malmesbury . My post was in response to HYUFD's simplistic post which stated "After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century"
Now I guess that one could ask "by what definition", but on a number of levels it is wrong. I am British with Irish ancestry, brought up a Catholic, though no longer "practicing" (and therefore not getting better at it). The reality is that there is an inbuilt cultural prejudice in this country toward Catholicism that goes all the way back to the reformation, combined (and possibly connected) with a prejudice that believes Irish people are backward and stupid. Hence my post, so forgive me for my violent Irish nature that comes to the fore when I see ignorant simplistic crap written about Ireland.
On what level was it wrong? Certainly from about the 1930s to 1990s the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe after the Vatican City, probably even more so than Italy and Spain. Though now Poland has overtaken it as Ireland has become more socially liberal and the Poles removed Communist atheist rule
Define "most" please? What are your criteria?
From 1950 to 1970 more people in the Republic of Ireland probably attended Mass than any other European nation, the Catholic church controlled Irish Schools and morality, orphanages and adoptions and the Irish government was heavily linked to it. Not only abortion and homosexuality but divorce too was illegal in the Republic of Ireland in that time
I think that's extremely unlikely given how small Ireland's population was relative to Spain / Italy / etc
Percentage wise I stand by it, outside of the Vatican city the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe even 50 years ago
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
@christopherhope 20s 👀 Boris Johnson has kept hold of his personal mobile phone from before May 2021 and has not surrendered it to the Covid-19 inquiry. What messages are on it? This covers a 15 month period from the start of the pandemic in February 2020.
Because he replaced his phone and phone number in May 2021 when it was discovered that the number had been publicly available for 15 years and a number of people published the number.
Bozo being Bozo he also screwed up the transfer of WhatsApp messages from the old phone to his new one - which is why none prior to May 2021 exist.
This is old known news but it's remarkable how many people seem to have forgotten it.
It's a rather Rebekkah Vardy style defence!
The bit that is a bit fiddly is transferring the old messages to a new phone with a new number.
Setting up on a new phone with the same number is trivial
Of course, if all the staff handed over their WhatsApp messages then the conversations would be visible, unless Johnson was only conversing with himself.
I wonder if Cummings has complied. Are former staff part of this haul of evidence?
It seems it is a very wide circle not only politicians but many civil servants and others including former staff
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
No indeed. Why can't the messages be reviewed by the Inquiry chair, and her alone? She can redact irrelevant sensitive data for the wider Inquiry team and for public consumption.
I'm sure there will be too much stuff for any one person to review - it would be her team. All the same, the team members would be under strict confidentiality obligations. In any case the Cabinet Office staff and lawyers are looking at all the material, so it's hard to see why the task can't be done with equal safeguards by the Inquiry team.
What a weirdo. If I had views like that, I would be inclined to keep them to myself rather than broadcast them to the world.
It's a common symptom of Israel Derangement Syndrome though.
It has the weird side effect of shielding Israel from the criticism it ought to get from actual sensible people who don't want to sound like Barry from Four Lions.
It is so easy
1) "Benjamin Netanyahu is demonstrably a crook, and a racist arsehole, who pursues disgusting, racist policies towards the Palestinians" - NOT A RACIST STATEMENT
2) "The Blood Libel must have some truth behind it." - RACIST
In order not to be anti-semitic, just criticise actual actions by actual people or actual groups. If anything starts with "all Jews..."
Although, "Of course, I'm not saying *all* Jews..." is also a pretty dodgy way to start a sentence.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
Sigh.
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
No need for a sigh, @Malmesbury . My post was in response to HYUFD's simplistic post which stated "After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century"
Now I guess that one could ask "by what definition", but on a number of levels it is wrong. I am British with Irish ancestry, brought up a Catholic, though no longer "practicing" (and therefore not getting better at it). The reality is that there is an inbuilt cultural prejudice in this country toward Catholicism that goes all the way back to the reformation, combined (and possibly connected) with a prejudice that believes Irish people are backward and stupid. Hence my post, so forgive me for my violent Irish nature that comes to the fore when I see ignorant simplistic crap written about Ireland.
On what level was it wrong? Certainly from about the 1930s to 1990s the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe after the Vatican City, probably even more so than Italy and Spain. Though now Poland has overtaken it as Ireland has become more socially liberal and the Poles removed Communist atheist rule
Define "most" please? What are your criteria?
From 1950 to 1970 more people in the Republic of Ireland probably attended Mass than any other European nation, the Catholic church controlled Irish Schools and morality, orphanages and adoptions and the Irish government was heavily linked to it. Not only abortion and homosexuality but divorce too was illegal in the Republic of Ireland in that time
I think that's extremely unlikely given how small Ireland's population was relative to Spain / Italy / etc
Percentage wise I stand by it, outside of the Vatican city the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe even 50 years ago
That's only because the other lot went in for partition based on religion. The UK was a whole lot less Catholic and a lot more Protestant as a result.
Divorce for all was legalised in GB in the 19th century and in Northern Ireland in 1939, in the Republic of Ireland not until 1996.
Homosexuality was legalised in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980 (with SNP MPs voting against), in Northern Ireland in 1982 but in the Republic of Ireland not until 1993.
Doctors have been able to legally perform abortions in GB since 1967 but in Ireland not until 2019.
Roman Catholic church opposition in Ireland to socially liberal reforms played a key part in that
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
I imagine there's a planner somewhere in the West who's job it is to try to work out how many people would die if NATO decided to just get rid of Putin. I'm almost certain that any conclusions would finish up being the wrong answer (Russia is simply losing the long game), but it's very scary how weak Russia looks, and thus how enticing the opportunity might be for madness.
Happily the Chinese would have most to win in pretty much all situations, so we can sleep easy. (I'm safer in my sleep because of China rather than NATO - I think it might be true!)
"I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than 10-20 million tops, depending on the breaks"
@christopherhope 20s 👀 Boris Johnson has kept hold of his personal mobile phone from before May 2021 and has not surrendered it to the Covid-19 inquiry. What messages are on it? This covers a 15 month period from the start of the pandemic in February 2020.
Because he replaced his phone and phone number in May 2021 when it was discovered that the number had been publicly available for 15 years and a number of people published the number.
Bozo being Bozo he also screwed up the transfer of WhatsApp messages from the old phone to his new one - which is why none prior to May 2021 exist.
This is old known news but it's remarkable how many people seem to have forgotten it.
TBF, as I mentioned a year or so ago, I failed to transfer messages and groups on Whatsapp between two phones. And I'm fairly technically literate.
Presumably I'm unusual then in taking the opportunity of a new phone to easily delete all historic Whatsapp messages by deliberately not transferring them across? (Contacts come across as I keep the number, but why do I need to know that 3 years ago last week my wife messaged 'what do you want for dinner'...)
I lost all contacts and groups, as well as messages. The process just did not work well for me.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
Sigh.
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
No need for a sigh, @Malmesbury . My post was in response to HYUFD's simplistic post which stated "After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century"
Now I guess that one could ask "by what definition", but on a number of levels it is wrong. I am British with Irish ancestry, brought up a Catholic, though no longer "practicing" (and therefore not getting better at it). The reality is that there is an inbuilt cultural prejudice in this country toward Catholicism that goes all the way back to the reformation, combined (and possibly connected) with a prejudice that believes Irish people are backward and stupid. Hence my post, so forgive me for my violent Irish nature that comes to the fore when I see ignorant simplistic crap written about Ireland.
On what level was it wrong? Certainly from about the 1930s to 1990s the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe after the Vatican City, probably even more so than Italy and Spain. Though now Poland has overtaken it as Ireland has become more socially liberal and the Poles removed Communist atheist rule
Define "most" please? What are your criteria?
From 1950 to 1970 more people in the Republic of Ireland probably attended Mass than any other European nation, the Catholic church controlled Irish Schools and morality, orphanages and adoptions and the Irish government was heavily linked to it. Not only abortion and homosexuality but divorce too was illegal in the Republic of Ireland in that time
I think that's extremely unlikely given how small Ireland's population was relative to Spain / Italy / etc
Percentage wise I stand by it, outside of the Vatican city the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe even 50 years ago
That's only because the other lot went in for partition based on religion. The UK was a whole lot less Catholic and a lot more Protestant as a result.
Divorce for all was legalised in GB in the 19th century and in Northern Ireland in 1939, in the Republic of Ireland not until 1996.
Homosexuality was legalised in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980 (with SNP MPs voting against), in Northern Ireland in 1982 but in the Republic of Ireland not until 1993.
Doctors have been able to legally perform abortions in GB since 1967 but in Ireland not until 2019.
Roman Catholic church opposition in Ireland to socially liberal reforms played a key part in that
Missing the point, which is that the UK (Unionist) made Ireland a RC country in the first place.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
I'm sure already stated, but whats app works independently of any particular device.
The only way to get rid of messages is to physically delete them (which will leave a trail behind it) and even then chances are whats app have everything backed up on a cloud somewhere...
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
Sigh.
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
No need for a sigh, @Malmesbury . My post was in response to HYUFD's simplistic post which stated "After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century"
Now I guess that one could ask "by what definition", but on a number of levels it is wrong. I am British with Irish ancestry, brought up a Catholic, though no longer "practicing" (and therefore not getting better at it). The reality is that there is an inbuilt cultural prejudice in this country toward Catholicism that goes all the way back to the reformation, combined (and possibly connected) with a prejudice that believes Irish people are backward and stupid. Hence my post, so forgive me for my violent Irish nature that comes to the fore when I see ignorant simplistic crap written about Ireland.
On what level was it wrong? Certainly from about the 1930s to 1990s the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe after the Vatican City, probably even more so than Italy and Spain. Though now Poland has overtaken it as Ireland has become more socially liberal and the Poles removed Communist atheist rule
Define "most" please? What are your criteria?
From 1950 to 1970 more people in the Republic of Ireland probably attended Mass than any other European nation, the Catholic church controlled Irish Schools and morality, orphanages and adoptions and the Irish government was heavily linked to it. Not only abortion and homosexuality but divorce too was illegal in the Republic of Ireland in that time
I think that's extremely unlikely given how small Ireland's population was relative to Spain / Italy / etc
Percentage wise I stand by it, outside of the Vatican city the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe even 50 years ago
Percentage-wise, you may well be right. But your language ("more people") suggested an absolute number rather than a percentage.
I've just immediately regretted looking into the tragic deaths off Bournemouth on Twitter. All sorts of conspiracy nonsense.
I do wonder if the police/press take the right approach too though - it does seem bizarrely cryptic in how it is being reported, and already people are leaping on it as in the Nicola Bulley case.
I agree
They have ruled out jet skis but eye witnesses suggested some of the swimmers found themselves under the pier with tragic consequences
That recently happened to a young female paddleboarded who got trapped under Conwy jetty and could not be saved
I assume the wash of a speedboat or a pleasure boat disturbed the water, but it is only my own thoughts and could be totally wrong
People really don’t get the effect of a whole body of water moving together - a tide or a river flow. Landing stages on the Thames can look all placid and nice. Get sucked under one and you can die on a nice sunny, superficially calm day in a minute or two.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
You may want to look at how Russia's NATO equivalent, the CSTO, has behaved through this war. Have you noticed the way Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan have sent troops to support Russia? Amazing support, isn't it?
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
Sigh.
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
No need for a sigh, @Malmesbury . My post was in response to HYUFD's simplistic post which stated "After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century"
Now I guess that one could ask "by what definition", but on a number of levels it is wrong. I am British with Irish ancestry, brought up a Catholic, though no longer "practicing" (and therefore not getting better at it). The reality is that there is an inbuilt cultural prejudice in this country toward Catholicism that goes all the way back to the reformation, combined (and possibly connected) with a prejudice that believes Irish people are backward and stupid. Hence my post, so forgive me for my violent Irish nature that comes to the fore when I see ignorant simplistic crap written about Ireland.
On what level was it wrong? Certainly from about the 1930s to 1990s the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe after the Vatican City, probably even more so than Italy and Spain. Though now Poland has overtaken it as Ireland has become more socially liberal and the Poles removed Communist atheist rule
Define "most" please? What are your criteria?
From 1950 to 1970 more people in the Republic of Ireland probably attended Mass than any other European nation, the Catholic church controlled Irish Schools and morality, orphanages and adoptions and the Irish government was heavily linked to it. Not only abortion and homosexuality but divorce too was illegal in the Republic of Ireland in that time
I think that's extremely unlikely given how small Ireland's population was relative to Spain / Italy / etc
Percentage wise I stand by it, outside of the Vatican city the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe even 50 years ago
I've just immediately regretted looking into the tragic deaths off Bournemouth on Twitter. All sorts of conspiracy nonsense.
I do wonder if the police/press take the right approach too though - it does seem bizarrely cryptic in how it is being reported, and already people are leaping on it as in the Nicola Bulley case.
I agree
They have ruled out jet skis but eye witnesses suggested some of the swimmers found themselves under the pier with tragic consequences
That recently happened to a young female paddleboarded who got trapped under Conwy jetty and could not be saved
I assume the wash of a speedboat or a pleasure boat disturbed the water, but it is only my own thoughts and could be totally wrong
People really don’t get the effect of a whole body of water moving together - a tide or a river flow. Landing stages on the Thames can look all placid and nice. Get sucked under one and you can die on a nice sunny, superficially calm day in a minute or two.
On a few rare occasions, I got to play with the water tank at QMW. The way water behaves is weird; and the more complex the environment, the weirder and chaotic it gets.
I thought the government was getting annoyed with all these judicial reviews and wanted to bring in legislation to restrict their use . Together with the use of the Human Rights Act as part of their case which they also hated before suddenly loving it .
Fuck the messages, I'm interested to see what comes up from examination of the Whatsapp images, video and animated gifs "channels" it automatically creates for you when someone in a conversation uses those.
I'm sure already stated, but whats app works independently of any particular device.
The only way to get rid of messages is to physically delete them (which will leave a trail behind it) and even then chances are whats app have everything backed up on a cloud somewhere...
Sky/Times/Sun = Sunak spinners. They are fighting a rather desperate rearguard action to try and hang this back on Boris, when Boris has handed over what he's got and challenged the Cabinet Office to pass the un-redacted messages to the enquiry. If a tranche of Boris's Whatsapps from before 2021 is missing, someone else in that group is perfectly capable of providing them, and Boris has urged them to do so.
I see where Mike Smithson is coming from but there's also a danger of potentially overstating the impact of "don't knows" returning to the Tories.
At the moment, with YouGov 21% of 2019 Tories are shown as DKs, only 7% for 2019 Labour and 15% LD. Let's assume for arguments sake that all of those 2019 voters who are DKs do vote, and in the same proportion as the rest of each party's 2019 voters have made up their mind to vote for or not to vote at all.
By my rough calculation, reallocating 2019 Con, Lab and LDs on that basis narrows the Labour lead over the Conservatives by about 4%, from 18% to 14%.
I think though that those assumptions are a rather extreme. Of the current DKs who voted in 2019, it's reasonable to expect that a higher proportion of of 2019 Conservatives than 2019 Labour will eventually decide not to vote. That simply reflects the observation that a lot more undecided 2019 Conservatives must surely be pretty disillusioned with their 2019 choice at this point than will be 2019 Labour (nothwithstanding the occasional BJO knocking around the electorate). A lot of DK 2019 Conservatives may be undecided about whether or not to vote at all. Indecision amongst 2019 Lab and LD DKss may be more down to having yet deciding which party to vote for tactically, from people who intend to vote. There's a lot of evidence that tactical voting is more prevalent on the left than the right.
Allowing for this, I think it reasonable to expect that the impact of DKs making up their mind will eventually reduce the Labour lead on polling day by around 2%, perhaps 3% if you're really pushing it, but not more than that.
And of the current pollsters, are there any which already reallocate the DKs in the same manner that ICM used to, in which case the effect will already be priced in. YouGov definitely don't. I'm not sure about the rest.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
@christopherhope 20s 👀 Boris Johnson has kept hold of his personal mobile phone from before May 2021 and has not surrendered it to the Covid-19 inquiry. What messages are on it? This covers a 15 month period from the start of the pandemic in February 2020.
Because he replaced his phone and phone number in May 2021 when it was discovered that the number had been publicly available for 15 years and a number of people published the number.
Bozo being Bozo he also screwed up the transfer of WhatsApp messages from the old phone to his new one - which is why none prior to May 2021 exist.
This is old known news but it's remarkable how many people seem to have forgotten it.
It's a rather Rebekkah Vardy style defence!
The bit that is a bit fiddly is transferring the old messages to a new phone with a new number.
Setting up on a new phone with the same number is trivial
Of course, if all the staff handed over their WhatsApp messages then the conversations would be visible, unless Johnson was only conversing with himself.
I wonder if Cummings has complied. Are former staff part of this haul of evidence?
Yes, I was wondering who else had been instructed to hand over their messages. The whole affair is bizarre in many ways.
It really is - and I wonder if it's what the release will inadvertently reveal that is causing the issue here. Line-crossing banter and so on. Spaffer never lost his journalistic compulsion to shock and scandalise.
I'd imagine Cummings kept his nose pretty clean, as his compulsion is to always try to prove he is the cleverest person in the room - though there may be some unpleasant 'let the pensioners die' type stuff in there.
Baroness Hallett wrote to Boris Johnson on February 3 with a list of 150 questions about the government’s handling of the pandemic.
Some of them are pretty savage – basically asking Johnson why he didn’t sack Hancock, why he didn’t attend Cobra in Feb 2020. Some of the best...
“Please explain what impact, if any, you consider alleged breaches of social restriction and lockdown rules by Ministers, officials and advisers... had on public confidence and the maintenance of observance of those rules by the public?”
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
As to whether WhatsApp messaging (other platforms are available) from non-Conservative parties should be made available unredacted for future inquiries. Of course it should
David Cameron has promised a "comprehensive piece of legislation" to close the "safe spaces" used by suspected terrorists to communicate online with each other.
If he wins the election, Mr Cameron said he would increase the authorities' power to access both the details of communications and their content.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
David Cameron has promised a "comprehensive piece of legislation" to close the "safe spaces" used by suspected terrorists to communicate online with each other.
If he wins the election, Mr Cameron said he would increase the authorities' power to access both the details of communications and their content.
But boy Dave is not seeking to withhold messages from a judge.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
Imagine they had actually done that and Boris had the same level of illness that he had from his (assumed!) naturally-occurring bout of COVID...
Nah. Tricky Dicky was a substantial figure with even more substantial flaws. I like the Clive James line, that the American people were right to throw him down but not entirely wrong to raise him up. Fishy Rishi is a highly fluent, highly numerate right winger. The world needs people like him, but not as Prime Minister.
David Cameron has promised a "comprehensive piece of legislation" to close the "safe spaces" used by suspected terrorists to communicate online with each other.
If he wins the election, Mr Cameron said he would increase the authorities' power to access both the details of communications and their content.
But boy Dave is not seeking to withhold messages from a judge.
"Emails between Rebekah Brooks and David Cameron 'withheld' from Leveson Inquiry"
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
David Cameron has promised a "comprehensive piece of legislation" to close the "safe spaces" used by suspected terrorists to communicate online with each other.
If he wins the election, Mr Cameron said he would increase the authorities' power to access both the details of communications and their content.
But boy Dave is not seeking to withhold messages from a judge.
"Emails between Rebekah Brooks and David Cameron 'withheld' from Leveson Inquiry"
Using the governments logic . In future a government can decide what it views as relevant , so you’re relying on people acting in good faith and not trying to cover things up .
Why should we believe that they’re acting in good faith ?
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
You said the enquiry must have access to the facts including communications but just where is the line to be drawn when those communications also include many irrelevant conversations
The line can only be drawn by the Inquiry
I've only casually followed this particular story, but it seems like the inherent broadness of a Covid enquiry, due to the nature of the event and aftermath, makes the government's position very difficult to maintain despite a nugget of reasonableness about irrelevent materials. Other inquiries would not face the same level of difficulty due to narrower scope.
So much communications around the subject will be intertwined, so much will impact on other matters, and if the government is the one deciding how to filter things out then the inquiry can have no real confidence that it has a true picture of things, making it pretty pointless.
I say that as someone generally skeptical of the worth of many inquiries.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
David Cameron has promised a "comprehensive piece of legislation" to close the "safe spaces" used by suspected terrorists to communicate online with each other.
If he wins the election, Mr Cameron said he would increase the authorities' power to access both the details of communications and their content.
But boy Dave is not seeking to withhold messages from a judge.
Comments
The risk to society of dysfunctional government, as a consequence of not communicating, is too great.
Let them talk in private. And judge them/imprison them in 20yrs time, if it turns out they’ve taken the piss.
It seems that Johnson has withheld information from the cabinet office as it only includes the period from May 21 when Johnson acquired a new phone and not before then
Of course you and others want Sunak compromised on this but maybe wait for more information first
@Sam Coates Sky
May 2021:
The month Boris Johnson announced the Covid inquiry https://gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-house-of-commons-statement-on-covid-12-may-2021
AND
The month Boris Johnson got a new phone
H/T @SkyNewsThompson
Anybody who thinks the current regime, and its predecessor under BJ, can be trusted to decide what is, and what isn't, relevant to the Covid Inquiry must be out of their mind. Hallett clearly isn't.
It is highlighted in Beevor's Spanish Civil War.
What's the point of fixing an enquiry if it finds out what you want hidden?
Indeed the cabinet office have confirmed Johnson’s information is incomplete
@JamesCleverly
Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO.
https://twitter.com/JamesCleverly/status/1664284827502403586?s=20
The problem is that it is undoubtedly mixed up in personal and semi-personal messages.
Which brings up the recent humiliation of Matt Hancock - who handed his WhatsApp messages to a journalist who promptly published everything embarrassing.
The answer is, of course, to ban usage of personal communications in government.
Incidentally, some claim that the deployment of the GBU-28 was so rapid that the casing was still warm from the explosive casting, for the first combat drop.
I do wonder if the police/press take the right approach too though - it does seem bizarrely cryptic in how it is being reported, and already people are leaping on it as in the Nicola Bulley case.
Setting up on a new phone with the same number is trivial
Happily the Chinese would have most to win in pretty much all situations, so we can sleep easy. (I'm safer in my sleep because of China rather than NATO - I think it might be true!)
I wonder if Cummings has complied. Are former staff part of this haul of evidence?
They have ruled out jet skis but eye witnesses suggested some of the swimmers found themselves under the pier with tragic consequences
That recently happened to a young female paddleboarded who got trapped under Conwy jetty and could not be saved
I assume the wash of a speedboat or a pleasure boat disturbed the water, but it is only my own thoughts and could be totally wrong
As far as I'm aware, he does not share his father's political views.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Homosexuality was legalised in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980 (with SNP MPs voting against), in Northern Ireland in 1982 but in the Republic of Ireland not until 1993.
Doctors have been able to legally perform abortions in GB since 1967 but in Ireland not until 2019.
Roman Catholic church opposition in Ireland to socially liberal reforms played a key part in that
https://youtu.be/EcK6ad_t9ak
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
The only way to get rid of messages is to physically delete them (which will leave a trail behind it) and even then chances are whats app have everything backed up on a cloud somewhere...
What utter vomit inducing hypocrisy!
I see where Mike Smithson is coming from but there's also a danger of potentially overstating the impact of "don't knows" returning to the Tories.
At the moment, with YouGov 21% of 2019 Tories are shown as DKs, only 7% for 2019 Labour and 15% LD. Let's assume for arguments sake that all of those 2019 voters who are DKs do vote, and in the same proportion as the rest of each party's 2019 voters have made up their mind to vote for or not to vote at all.
By my rough calculation, reallocating 2019 Con, Lab and LDs on that basis narrows the Labour lead over the Conservatives by about 4%, from 18% to 14%.
I think though that those assumptions are a rather extreme. Of the current DKs who voted in 2019, it's reasonable to expect that a higher proportion of of 2019 Conservatives than 2019 Labour will eventually decide not to vote. That simply reflects the observation that a lot more undecided 2019 Conservatives must surely be pretty disillusioned with their 2019 choice at this point than will be 2019 Labour (nothwithstanding the occasional BJO knocking around the electorate). A lot of DK 2019 Conservatives may be undecided about whether or not to vote at all. Indecision amongst 2019 Lab and LD DKss may be more down to having yet deciding which party to vote for tactically, from people who intend to vote. There's a lot of evidence that tactical voting is more prevalent on the left than the right.
Allowing for this, I think it reasonable to expect that the impact of DKs making up their mind will eventually reduce the Labour lead on polling day by around 2%, perhaps 3% if you're really pushing it, but not more than that.
And of the current pollsters, are there any which already reallocate the DKs in the same manner that ICM used to, in which case the effect will already be priced in. YouGov definitely don't. I'm not sure about the rest.
https://twitter.com/georgegrylls/status/1664326988604030976
eg:
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
I'd imagine Cummings kept his nose pretty clean, as his compulsion is to always try to prove he is the cleverest person in the room - though there may be some unpleasant 'let the pensioners die' type stuff in there.
Baroness Hallett wrote to Boris Johnson on February 3 with a list of 150 questions about the government’s handling of the pandemic.
Some of them are pretty savage – basically asking Johnson why he didn’t sack Hancock, why he didn’t attend Cobra in Feb 2020. Some of the best...
“Please explain what impact, if any, you consider alleged breaches of social restriction and lockdown rules by Ministers, officials and advisers... had on public confidence and the maintenance of observance of those rules by the public?”
https://twitter.com/georgegrylls/status/1664327234826432515
https://twitter.com/agkd123/status/1664315151523237888?s=46
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
As to whether WhatsApp messaging (other platforms are available) from non-Conservative parties should be made available unredacted for future inquiries. Of course it should
Rishi is a flipping hypocrite.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30778424
David Cameron has promised a "comprehensive piece of legislation" to close the "safe spaces" used by suspected terrorists to communicate online with each other.
If he wins the election, Mr Cameron said he would increase the authorities' power to access both the details of communications and their content.
Not going to work.
Perhaps the public are now desensitized to what’s acceptable in today’s politics . Has a government ever taken an inquiry it’s set up to court ?
The arrogance of this government is jaw dropping . They’re an absolute cesspit of corruption .
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218354/Emails-Rebekah-Brooks-David-Cameron-withheld-Leveson-Inquiry.html
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Planning routes and crossings in the UK haulage sector in 2022
Page summary:
Findings from a qualitative study on how the haulage sector responded to border disruption in recent years.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/planning-routes-and-crossings-in-the-uk-haulage-sector-in-2022
It probably revealed the top secret intelligence that a lot of freight flows to Calais via REDACTED.
Why should we believe that they’re acting in good faith ?
France is 4th, we are 5th
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat#:~:text=The nuclear-weapon states (NWS,nuclear weapons by the NPT.
So much communications around the subject will be intertwined, so much will impact on other matters, and if the government is the one deciding how to filter things out then the inquiry can have no real confidence that it has a true picture of things, making it pretty pointless.
I say that as someone generally skeptical of the worth of many inquiries.