So, we are to deduce that in May 2021, about the time that he announced there would be a statutory independent public inquiry into the handling of Covid, Boris Johnson, changed his phone, failed to transfer his WhatsApp data, didn't have a back-up. Very convenient.
But every WhatsApp message has at least two parties, so how confident is Johnson that his dodgy WhatsApps won't start leaking out one be one?
It is genuinely impressive the extent to which this government has forgotten to do politics. These messages must be spectacularly bad to make this a price worth paying.
It's actually a lesser remarked symptom of being in government too long, forgetting how to do politics.
You get angrier and lazier about dealing with opponents and media, you miss obvious traps and scandals, you miss opporunities because you're too busy navel gazing about your latest attempt to refresh things, etc.
Also, as governments refresh (and the long Conservative government since 2010 has refreshed a lot), you bring in people who never really had to do retail politics in the first place.
Who is left in the Cabinet from when the Conservatives were in opposition? I make it Hunt, Gove, Wallace, Hands, Harper, Shapps, Mitchell, Davies, and most of them arrived in 2005. How many of them got into parliament by winning a seat off the other lot? Mordaunt, Shapps... is that it?
It's not a thing to be particularly ashamed of, it's what happens over time, but it doesn't help a government stay in touch.
After today's trip up, the US Democrats can't nominate Joe Biden and expect to hold the presidency. I've bought Kamala Harris to win USPE2024 at 48.
It isn't a good look, but let's remember Trump required Theresa May to hold his hand whilst climbing a shallow stairs.
It's probably nothing, he is not in bad physical shape for 80, but let't not kid ourselves plenty are worried about his state, especially since at that age people can devolve quickly, so it plays so much worse than if DeSantis slipped and fell on his arse. Every little stumble will be portrayed as a sign of the end.
If Trump is permitted to run I'm far from confident he doesn't win.
JFC, just saw it
Dems need to tell Senile Old Joe to stand down. Enough
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
Potentially more than that. And they all need not just to be read, but also considered for relevance., and cross-referenced with other information to look for inconsistencies.
I'm not saying that information should not be released; just that it's potentially reasonable for some information not to be. And there lies the devil.
We've already seen a potential leak, and are seeing piss-taking over things like post-it notes.
We don't know who has leaked information allegedly from the inquiry nor whether what has been leaked is accurate or complete. The 150 questions were sent to Boris Johnson. So any leak could have come from:-
1. The inquiry. 2. Boris Johnson 3. His lawyers 4. Someone close to Boris 5. Anyone else with whom Boris or anyone of 3 and 4 shared the information.
I bet she never ends up doing that community service either, or gets something ridiculous to count towards it.
To be fair, from the story in the BBC it sounds a genuine accident when drinking and handling firearms.
To be even fairer, the story also states the maximum prison sentence for manslaughter by negligence in Belize is only five years - no jail time at all, not even a year (in effect more like 4-6 months) for handling a gun whilst pissed and killing someone?
I don't believe in severe punishment, but a little incarceration for killing someone when negligent, as admitted in this case, seems reasonable.
It also sounds like a made up story - he handed his pissed friend his gun, for some reason, then asked for it back? At some point, Mr Jemmott handed her his gun to put aside.
She later told investigators that she had been drinking, and had fumbled with the Glock 17 after the police chief asked for it back, leading to an accidental discharge.
Drinking and handling firearms? Sure, maybe jail time would be excessive.
Drinking and handling firearms and killing someone? Come on.
It is genuinely impressive the extent to which this government has forgotten to do politics. These messages must be spectacularly bad to make this a price worth paying.
It's actually a lesser remarked symptom of being in government too long, forgetting how to do politics.
You get angrier and lazier about dealing with opponents and media, you miss obvious traps and scandals, you miss opporunities because you're too busy navel gazing about your latest attempt to refresh things, etc.
Also, as governments refresh (and the long Conservative government since 2010 has refreshed a lot), you bring in people who never really had to do retail politics in the first place.
Who is left in the Cabinet from when the Conservatives were in opposition? I make it Hunt, Gove, Wallace, Hands, Harper, Shapps, Mitchell, Davies, and most of them arrived in 2005. How many of them got into parliament by winning a seat off the other lot? Mordaunt, Shapps... is that it?
It's not a thing to be particularly ashamed of, it's what happens over time, but it doesn't help a government stay in touch.
Just pondering on the fact that my newly single youngest son may well begin his second year looking for a Fresher's week hook up. At UCL... I could be being introduced to @Leon before year's end. That might be a tad embarrassing for us all.
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
I bet she never ends up doing that community service either, or gets something ridiculous to count towards it.
To be fair, from the story in the BBC it sounds a genuine accident when drinking and handling firearms.
To be even fairer, the story also states the maximum prison sentence for manslaughter by negligence in Belize is only five years - no jail time at all, not even a year (in effect more like 4-6 months) for handling a gun whilst pissed and killing someone?
I don't believe in severe punishment, but a little incarceration for killing someone when negligent, as admitted in this case, seems reasonable.
It also sounds like a made up story - he handed his pissed friend his gun, for some reason, then asked for it back? At some point, Mr Jemmott handed her his gun to put aside.
She later told investigators that she had been drinking, and had fumbled with the Glock 17 after the police chief asked for it back, leading to an accidental discharge.
Yes, daft behaviour showing off your weapon to an attractive lady friend after a few drinks, but some men do such things.
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
I CHALLENGE PB TO COME UP WITH OTHER CONTENDERS
Shipwrights at Helford. What's a pub without a sea view?
After today's trip up, the US Democrats can't nominate Joe Biden and expect to hold the presidency. I've bought Kamala Harris to win USPE2024 at 48.
It isn't a good look, but let's remember Trump required Theresa May to hold his hand whilst climbing a shallow stairs.
It's probably nothing, he is not in bad physical shape for 80, but let't not kid ourselves plenty are worried about his state, especially since at that age people can devolve quickly, so it plays so much worse than if DeSantis slipped and fell on his arse. Every little stumble will be portrayed as a sign of the end.
If Trump is permitted to run I'm far from confident he doesn't win.
JFC, just saw it
Dems need to tell Senile Old Joe to stand down. Enough
Stand down? I think they'd be happy if he just stayed stood up.
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
What is curious is that it does not focus on who makes the decision on whether something is relevant or not.
The other point to note is that the right to privacy is not one of those absolute rights in the ECHR, unlike, say, the right not to be subject to torture / degrading treatment. If you are involved in court proceedings, matters which you might think of as private lose that quality simply because they are - or may be evidence.
One final point: relevance is not determined simply by seeing whether a communication refers to Covid or not. What someone is doing - or where someone is - may be corroborative evidence or may provide evidence of why people were not where they should or doing what they should have been doing. Or it may provide evidence of their state of mind or explain why certain things were or were not done. Or it may contradict what they now say.
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
I CHALLENGE PB TO COME UP WITH OTHER CONTENDERS
Shipwrights at Helford. What's a pub without a sea view?
Spencers in Leicester. Now there's a proper British pub!
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
I CHALLENGE PB TO COME UP WITH OTHER CONTENDERS
Shipwrights at Helford. What's a pub without a sea view?
Good call. Sadly they fed me such a shitty shepherd's pie in about 2014 I have to discount them
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
The Old Ship at Newbiggin is my current favourite. Sea views, cheap and simple but delicious well cooked food. Live bands every week. Miles of gorgeous beach 20 yards away. Bus stop home outside. Bookies next door. What's not to like?
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
Dartington, near Totnes, Devon. Overall pub of the year in Britain, 2019.....
Looks LOVELY (like much of Devon) - however, can you walk to a Tube station in 10 mins and be in a World City centre like Soho in 20? No
That's what marks out the Spaniard's. It has all the agreeableness of a glorious country pub - eg the Heath - but it is basically in central London (or near enough)
Just pondering on the fact that my newly single youngest son may well begin his second year looking for a Fresher's week hook up. At UCL... I could be being introduced to @Leon before year's end. That might be a tad embarrassing for us all.
I was going to ask how you'd know, but of course good quality flint dildo knappers are few and far between.
What is curious is that it does not focus on who makes the decision on whether something is relevant or not.
The other point to note is that the right to privacy is not one of those absolute rights in the ECHR, unlike, say, the right not to be subject to torture / degrading treatment. If you are involved in court proceedings, matters which you might think of as private lose that quality simply because they are - or may be evidence.
One final point: relevance is not determined simply by seeing whether a communication refers to Covid or not. What someone is doing - or where someone is - may be corroborative evidence or may provide evidence of why people were not where they should or doing what they should have been doing. Or it may provide evidence of their state of mind or explain why certain things were or were not done. Or it may contradict what they now say.
In any event section 21 of the Inquiries Act 2005 says:
(1)The chairman of an inquiry may by notice require a person to attend at a time and place stated in the notice— (a) to give evidence; (b) to produce any documents in his custody or under his control that relate to a matter in question at the inquiry; (c) to produce any other thing in his custody or under his control for inspection, examination or testing by or on behalf of the inquiry panel. (My bold)
So the relevance is not strictly a requirement according to the Act, surely?
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
Dartington, near Totnes, Devon. Overall pub of the year in Britain, 2019.....
Looks LOVELY (like much of Devon) - however, can you walk to a Tube station in 10 mins and be in a World City centre like Soho in 20? No
That's what marks out the Spaniard's. It has all the agreeableness of a glorious country pub - eg the Heath - but it is basically in central London (or near enough)
Is it too much to ask the USA to come up with just one candidate we can be confident could walk 100 metres without falling or having a coronary or both?
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
Dartington, near Totnes, Devon. Overall pub of the year in Britain, 2019.....
Looks LOVELY (like much of Devon) - however, can you walk to a Tube station in 10 mins and be in a World City centre like Soho in 20? No
That's what marks out the Spaniard's. It has all the agreeableness of a glorious country pub - eg the Heath - but it is basically in central London (or near enough)
It is genuinely impressive the extent to which this government has forgotten to do politics. These messages must be spectacularly bad to make this a price worth paying.
My suspicion is that they will turn out to be comparatively trivial and all this has been total obstinacy.
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
Potentially more than that. And they all need not just to be read, but also considered for relevance., and cross-referenced with other information to look for inconsistencies.
I'm not saying that information should not be released; just that it's potentially reasonable for some information not to be. And there lies the devil.
We've already seen a potential leak, and are seeing piss-taking over things like post-it notes.
We don't know who has leaked information allegedly from the inquiry nor whether what has been leaked is accurate or complete. The 150 questions were sent to Boris Johnson. So any leak could have come from:-
1. The inquiry. 2. Boris Johnson 3. His lawyers 4. Someone close to Boris 5. Anyone else with whom Boris or anyone of 3 and 4 shared the information.
Indeed. But I'd argue - especially given the reactions to it on here tonight - that it was not in his interests, or his lawyers, or someone close to him, to release it.
But it highlights the problem.
I'm not saying a lot of information should be withheld; just that saying all information should be given is dangerous. Especially as it is a very wide trawl, and anyone wrongly deciding something wasn't relevant, and therefore shouldn't be given, might get into serious trouble, Which means there will be a tendency to give too much stuff.
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
I CHALLENGE PB TO COME UP WITH OTHER CONTENDERS
Shipwrights at Helford. What's a pub without a sea view?
Spencers in Leicester. Now there's a proper British pub!
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
Wonderful pub - know it well - quite dodgy food, sadly
Crab sandwich + a pint last time we were there. Splendid.
You have sparked a rush of evidence that shows that for all the talk of pub closures there are some magnificent ones dotted around the country. Great pubs will always thrive.
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
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?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
They can demand all they like whatsapp however is end to end encrypted and cannot hand them over. The fact you dont seem to comprehend that really makes your opinion on this null and void
Surely it's as simple as creating an unencrypted backup and handing over the resulting file?
Whatsapp dont have the encryption keys hence the name end to end encryption. They cannot decrypt the messages
If only In-Q-Tel had had more foresight. I told the CIA to be careful. Seriously, you must be living in cloud cuckoo land.
You do realise that knowledgeble people have been over the code from places like signal etc specifically looking for backdoors. Would the NSA love them sure....doesnt mean they are there however. Why do you think many governements are trying to make end to end encryption illegal?
That's true. But Spectre and the like shows that there can be *very* innovative and interesting backdoors into systems - and not all are software.
I'm not saying that's happening - but wanting to ban encryption is both a good back-up, and also a good smokescreen. It is also utterly impossible.
Tell that to the eu who are currently wanting to
It's not only the EU, in the US Lindsay Graham introduced the “Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act”, which would require all makers of encryption to create a backdoor for law enforcement.
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
Dartington, near Totnes, Devon. Overall pub of the year in Britain, 2019.....
Looks LOVELY (like much of Devon) - however, can you walk to a Tube station in 10 mins and be in a World City centre like Soho in 20? No
That's what marks out the Spaniard's. It has all the agreeableness of a glorious country pub - eg the Heath - but it is basically in central London (or near enough)
Indeed. Not being 20 minutes from Soho is a positive boon for many.
I went to two interesting pubs in Southampton. The Platform has always been a favourite of mine - I love it there. But there's also the rather *interesting* Red Lion nearby. Complete with real 15th-16th century timbering and suits of armour.
What do you want from a pub? Good drinks, good company, and a good atmosphere?
Pubs are hugely personal though. I prefer ones without poncey menus and diners. And with regulars who you know can handle themselves.
Agreed
A pub should have good food - properly good food - but no "fine dining" nonsense
So serve excellent local ingredients with imagination and intelligence, but don't worry about Michelin stars. Have good beer, decent wine and a garden or pretty yard (if possible)
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
I CHALLENGE PB TO COME UP WITH OTHER CONTENDERS
Shipwrights at Helford. What's a pub without a sea view?
Spencers in Leicester. Now there's a proper British pub!
The Ale Wagon is my favourite of the few places I've tried in Leicester on train trips. Good beer, newspapers, pleasant locals, and no fuss.
The Parcel Yard next to the Train Station is pretty good. The Eclipse is a really interesting old Georgian pub, and acts as a man-creche for the shopping areas, but my favourite is the Sir Robert Peel next to the Hospital. A proper old school pub with fire, good beer and no music or TV and also has the advantage of being 30 meters from work.
As far as pubs go, I would say the greatest pub in the United Kingdom is The Metropolitan, on top of Baker Street Station.
Now, some would point out that it is a Wetherspoon's, and this is true. The food is rubbish. The beer mediocre. The lights too bright. The atmosphere somewhat lacking.
But it has something that none of these other pubs has: some insanely great memories.
I would also like to nominate the Pride of Spitalfields, for the same reason.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
There's been no indication that the government will submit anything of the kind.
As I said below, it's perfectly possible for information handed over to the inquiry contains much more than just covid-relevant stuff (if, for example, it's in the same email or message), And redaction is apparently out.
I'm talking edge cases here; but edge cases are really important.
(as a manufactured example; say a conversation covered the reaction to covid, help we were giving to Ukraine, and future potential policies on privatising schools. The first part is relevant; the second is irrelevant and could prove dangerous if leaked; and the third is irrelevant and potentially politicaly incendiary.
It's perfectly possible, and fair, for a message to contain information on all of these. And the inquiry should certainly get the first part. But all the others as well?
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Codswallop.
Hold on... aren't you the guy who believes in Ukrainian bioweapon labs? If that's your track record on facts about WMDs, why should we pay any attention to your opinion here?
Pubs are hugely personal though. I prefer ones without poncey menus and diners. And with regulars who you know can handle themselves.
Agreed
A pub should have good food - properly good food - but no "fine dining" nonsense
So serve excellent local ingredients with imagination and intelligence, but don't worry about Michelin stars. Have good beer, decent wine and a garden or pretty yard (if possible)
Sadly, Spencers in Leicester had its application for tables outside refused after the funeral brawl. Some of the neighbouring businesses thought patrons might use them as weapons, but as the landlord pointed out most of the brawlers were trying to stop the fight. Nanny state or what!
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Codswallop.
Just as a matter of interest, in your personal life, do you think that saying "yes sir, of course" to bullies and blackmailers decreases your chance of being bullied and blackmailed in the future?
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
There's been no indication that the government will submit anything of the kind.
As I said below, it's perfectly possible for information handed over to the inquiry contains much more than just covid-relevant stuff (if, for example, it's in the same email or message), And redaction is apparently out.
I'm talking edge cases here; but edge cases are really important.
(as a manufactured example; say a conversation covered the reaction to covid, help we were giving to Ukraine, and future potential policies on privatising schools. The first part is relevant; the second is irrelevant and could prove dangerous if leaked; and the third is irrelevant and potentially politicaly incendiary.
It's perfectly possible, and fair, for a message to contain information on all of these. And the inquiry should certainly get the first part. But all the others as well?
Why not? You can make sure the information is transmitted securely. You give the information to a judge or a member of the judge's team. Judges are used to looking at all sorts of confidential information. The judge can decide what needs to be seen more widely. That's what judges do all the time.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It's more than a soundbite. It's the reality of how good investigations work and have to work.
Judges are well used to dealing with issues of national security in court hearings. If information is truly irrelevant then it will not need to be referred to or released.
As I said below, the volume of information is such that it will be a team, not just a judge. Unless you want the inquiry to take until the heat-death of the universe.
"If information is truly irrelevant then it will not need to be referred to or released."
It's already been made quite clear that not releasing information will be a serious matter, and that the government and civil service cannot decide what is relevant or not. For that reason, the tendency will be to do a CYA situation and release far too much. You know, just in case.
I bet she never ends up doing that community service either, or gets something ridiculous to count towards it.
To be fair, from the story in the BBC it sounds a genuine accident when drinking and handling firearms.
To be even fairer, the story also states the maximum prison sentence for manslaughter by negligence in Belize is only five years - no jail time at all, not even a year (in effect more like 4-6 months) for handling a gun whilst pissed and killing someone?
I don't believe in severe punishment, but a little incarceration for killing someone when negligent, as admitted in this case, seems reasonable.
It also sounds like a made up story - he handed his pissed friend his gun, for some reason, then asked for it back? At some point, Mr Jemmott handed her his gun to put aside.
She later told investigators that she had been drinking, and had fumbled with the Glock 17 after the police chief asked for it back, leading to an accidental discharge.
Yes, daft behaviour showing off your weapon to an attractive lady friend after a few drinks, but some men do such things.
And if the lady friend kills you accidentally during it a few months inside at least is not disproportionate.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
Potentially more than that. And they all need not just to be read, but also considered for relevance., and cross-referenced with other information to look for inconsistencies.
I'm not saying that information should not be released; just that it's potentially reasonable for some information not to be. And there lies the devil.
We've already seen a potential leak, and are seeing piss-taking over things like post-it notes.
We don't know who has leaked information allegedly from the inquiry nor whether what has been leaked is accurate or complete. The 150 questions were sent to Boris Johnson. So any leak could have come from:-
1. The inquiry. 2. Boris Johnson 3. His lawyers 4. Someone close to Boris 5. Anyone else with whom Boris or anyone of 3 and 4 shared the information.
Indeed. But I'd argue - especially given the reactions to it on here tonight - that it was not in his interests, or his lawyers, or someone close to him, to release it.
But it highlights the problem.
I'm not saying a lot of information should be withheld; just that saying all information should be given is dangerous. Especially as it is a very wide trawl, and anyone wrongly deciding something wasn't relevant, and therefore shouldn't be given, might get into serious trouble, Which means there will be a tendency to give too much stuff.
I have done quite a few leak inquiries in my time.
I rather think that Boris - or someone close to him - is more likely to be the source of the leak than anyone else. Judges are usually very hot on maintaining confidentiality.
I'm afraid your reasoning for not giving information does not stack up to me. And it misses the key point which is who takes the decision on what is or is not relevant. As with other court proceedings, if there is a dispute about whether something should be disclosed, it is always the judge in the end who decides. There is no good reason why it should be different here.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
There's been no indication that the government will submit anything of the kind.
As I said below, it's perfectly possible for information handed over to the inquiry contains much more than just covid-relevant stuff (if, for example, it's in the same email or message), And redaction is apparently out.
I'm talking edge cases here; but edge cases are really important.
(as a manufactured example; say a conversation covered the reaction to covid, help we were giving to Ukraine, and future potential policies on privatising schools. The first part is relevant; the second is irrelevant and could prove dangerous if leaked; and the third is irrelevant and potentially politicaly incendiary.
It's perfectly possible, and fair, for a message to contain information on all of these. And the inquiry should certainly get the first part. But all the others as well?
Why not? You can make sure the information is transmitted securely. You give the information to a judge or a member of the judge's team. Judges are used to looking at all sorts of confidential information. The judge can decide what needs to be seen more widely. That's what judges do all the time.
Because some information may be secret, and intensely damaging if released. Not necessarily damaging to Boris, or the Conservatives, but the country. And that matters.
And pray, why do you automatically trust judges or their 'teams' with such precious information?
Pubs are hugely personal though. I prefer ones without poncey menus and diners. And with regulars who you know can handle themselves.
Agreed
A pub should have good food - properly good food - but no "fine dining" nonsense
So serve excellent local ingredients with imagination and intelligence, but don't worry about Michelin stars. Have good beer, decent wine and a garden or pretty yard (if possible)
Yes. If "fine dining" is your aim, maybe a restaurant would be a better choice?
Pubs are hugely personal though. I prefer ones without poncey menus and diners. And with regulars who you know can handle themselves.
Agreed
A pub should have good food - properly good food - but no "fine dining" nonsense
So serve excellent local ingredients with imagination and intelligence, but don't worry about Michelin stars. Have good beer, decent wine and a garden or pretty yard (if possible)
The George at Cam used to be very good, but it's been ruined by a new manager.
The Dog and Partridge at Calf Heath is remarkable for its old world charm.
The Punchbowl at Bridgnorth was very good for a very long time, but I haven't been recently.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It's more than a soundbite. It's the reality of how good investigations work and have to work.
Judges are well used to dealing with issues of national security in court hearings. If information is truly irrelevant then it will not need to be referred to or released.
As I said below, the volume of information is such that it will be a team, not just a judge. Unless you want the inquiry to take until the heat-death of the universe.
And why is that a problem? Do we suspect judges just pick random, unreliable people to be in their team?
If the Govt is concerned about particular messages, presumably they could ask that those messages in particular only go to the judge in charge.
The amount of material that's been redacted must be finite, or else the Govt must have equally employed large teams to do the redacting! We can presume the redacted material is manageable.
Having said that. The Feathers at Hedley on the Hill, Northumberland takes some beating. Views to Scotland. Fine dining with entirely locally sourced ingredients. Craft ales and a small, but excellent wine list. Catering for all budgets. Excuse is that it is far too small a Hamlet to have both a pub and a restaurant. It also has regulars who can handle themselves. And sheep.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
Potentially more than that. And they all need not just to be read, but also considered for relevance., and cross-referenced with other information to look for inconsistencies.
I'm not saying that information should not be released; just that it's potentially reasonable for some information not to be. And there lies the devil.
We've already seen a potential leak, and are seeing piss-taking over things like post-it notes.
We don't know who has leaked information allegedly from the inquiry nor whether what has been leaked is accurate or complete. The 150 questions were sent to Boris Johnson. So any leak could have come from:-
1. The inquiry. 2. Boris Johnson 3. His lawyers 4. Someone close to Boris 5. Anyone else with whom Boris or anyone of 3 and 4 shared the information.
Indeed. But I'd argue - especially given the reactions to it on here tonight - that it was not in his interests, or his lawyers, or someone close to him, to release it.
But it highlights the problem.
I'm not saying a lot of information should be withheld; just that saying all information should be given is dangerous. Especially as it is a very wide trawl, and anyone wrongly deciding something wasn't relevant, and therefore shouldn't be given, might get into serious trouble, Which means there will be a tendency to give too much stuff.
I have done quite a few leak inquiries in my time.
I rather think that Boris - or someone close to him - is more likely to be the source of the leak than anyone else. Judges are usually very hot on maintaining confidentiality.
I'm afraid your reasoning for not giving information does not stack up to me. And it misses the key point which is who takes the decision on what is or is not relevant. As with other court proceedings, if there is a dispute about whether something should be disclosed, it is always the judge in the end who decides. There is no good reason why it should be different here.
"I rather think that Boris - or someone close to him - is more likely to be the source of the leak than anyone else. Judges are usually very hot on maintaining confidentiality."
I am unsurprised that is your view. Even though, as we can see from the reaction below, it damages Boris Johnson.
And the word 'usually' is important as well.
Again, I am not saying that a lot of information should be withheld or redacted. Just that it's perfectly feasible that there are cases when it will be dangerous for it to be given.
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Possibly true but not supported by very much evidence. The only live case study suggests that nukez meanz VJ Day. Analogies with standing up to playground bullies are just analogies.
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Codswallop.
Just as a matter of interest, in your personal life, do you think that saying "yes sir, of course" to bullies and blackmailers decreases your chance of being bullied and blackmailed in the future?
I think it stops the blackmailer releasing their compromat in the immediate term, which is the purpose of paying the blackmailer. And if you have equal compromat on that person, that's fine and dandy.
The doctrine of MAD is really quite simple. Saying we shouldn't care because 'half of them won't go off' is certifiable.
I bet she never ends up doing that community service either, or gets something ridiculous to count towards it.
To be fair, from the story in the BBC it sounds a genuine accident when drinking and handling firearms.
To be even fairer, the story also states the maximum prison sentence for manslaughter by negligence in Belize is only five years - no jail time at all, not even a year (in effect more like 4-6 months) for handling a gun whilst pissed and killing someone?
I don't believe in severe punishment, but a little incarceration for killing someone when negligent, as admitted in this case, seems reasonable.
It also sounds like a made up story - he handed his pissed friend his gun, for some reason, then asked for it back? At some point, Mr Jemmott handed her his gun to put aside.
She later told investigators that she had been drinking, and had fumbled with the Glock 17 after the police chief asked for it back, leading to an accidental discharge.
Yes, daft behaviour showing off your weapon to an attractive lady friend after a few drinks, but some men do such things.
And if the lady friend kills you accidentally during it a few months inside at least is not disproportionate.
What purpose would sending her to jail actually serve?
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
Are you implying that Internet scrandies may not be fully read in to the latest intelligence on the readiness status of the Russian Strategic Missile Force?
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
There's been no indication that the government will submit anything of the kind.
As I said below, it's perfectly possible for information handed over to the inquiry contains much more than just covid-relevant stuff (if, for example, it's in the same email or message), And redaction is apparently out.
I'm talking edge cases here; but edge cases are really important.
(as a manufactured example; say a conversation covered the reaction to covid, help we were giving to Ukraine, and future potential policies on privatising schools. The first part is relevant; the second is irrelevant and could prove dangerous if leaked; and the third is irrelevant and potentially politicaly incendiary.
It's perfectly possible, and fair, for a message to contain information on all of these. And the inquiry should certainly get the first part. But all the others as well?
Why not? You can make sure the information is transmitted securely. You give the information to a judge or a member of the judge's team. Judges are used to looking at all sorts of confidential information. The judge can decide what needs to be seen more widely. That's what judges do all the time.
Because some information may be secret, and intensely damaging if released. Not necessarily damaging to Boris, or the Conservatives, but the country. And that matters.
And pray, why do you automatically trust judges or their 'teams' with such precious information?
As I said below: there has to be a balance.
Judges handle confidential information all the time, as has been pointed out to you. There are very few cases where the information is so exceedingly sensitive that it wouldn't be shared with a judge in other circumstances. (Is the Justice and Security Act 2013 relevant here?) But, sure, OK, let's imagine we're dealing with that case...
If information is that exceedingly sensitive, one absolutely should not in any circumstances be discussing it on WhatsApp on a phone! Were Boris doing that, we should, to quote Donald Trump about another case of a politician not taking information security seriously enough, "lock h[im] up".
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Possibly true but not supported by very much evidence. The only live case study suggests that nukez meanz VJ Day. Analogies with standing up to playground bullies are just analogies.
The Japanese didn't have nukes of their own. Or Truman wouldn't have used them.
I bet she never ends up doing that community service either, or gets something ridiculous to count towards it.
To be fair, from the story in the BBC it sounds a genuine accident when drinking and handling firearms.
To be even fairer, the story also states the maximum prison sentence for manslaughter by negligence in Belize is only five years - no jail time at all, not even a year (in effect more like 4-6 months) for handling a gun whilst pissed and killing someone?
I don't believe in severe punishment, but a little incarceration for killing someone when negligent, as admitted in this case, seems reasonable.
It also sounds like a made up story - he handed his pissed friend his gun, for some reason, then asked for it back? At some point, Mr Jemmott handed her his gun to put aside.
She later told investigators that she had been drinking, and had fumbled with the Glock 17 after the police chief asked for it back, leading to an accidental discharge.
Yes, daft behaviour showing off your weapon to an attractive lady friend after a few drinks, but some men do such things.
And if the lady friend kills you accidentally during it a few months inside at least is not disproportionate.
What purpose would sending her to jail actually serve?
In general I agree with that stance when it comes to incarceration, but she literally killed someone and yet will face zero consequences whatsoever as she is rich enough that the fine is without any consequences and community service is a joke.
The justice system is not solely to do with punishing people, but there can still be at least some element of punishment for criminal acts, at the very least when they result in someone's death - the law includes the possibility of incarceration for the offence for a reason, and it is not a very lengthy one.
What even a few months inside might serve would be an indication being super rich doesn't mean you get away without any real punishment when you kill someone. If you accidentally kill someone with your car whilst drunk would it serve much purpose if you were put inside for 10 years? Not really. But one year (out in 6 months) for being criminally responsible for someone's death? Seems like purpose enough.
As far as pubs go, I would say the greatest pub in the United Kingdom is The Metropolitan, on top of Baker Street Station.
Now, some would point out that it is a Wetherspoon's, and this is true. The food is rubbish. The beer mediocre. The lights too bright. The atmosphere somewhat lacking.
But it has something that none of these other pubs has: some insanely great memories.
I would also like to nominate the Pride of Spitalfields, for the same reason.
I went to the Metropolitan with work colleagues, about 8 years ago. I ordered chicken and it was not properly defrosted - it was frozen in the centre.
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Codswallop.
Just as a matter of interest, in your personal life, do you think that saying "yes sir, of course" to bullies and blackmailers decreases your chance of being bullied and blackmailed in the future?
I think it stops the blackmailer releasing their compromat in the immediate term, which is the purpose of paying the blackmailer. And if you have equal compromat on that person, that's fine and dandy.
The doctrine of MAD is really quite simple. Saying we shouldn't care because 'half of them won't go off' is certifiable.
Caving because you are scared of nuclear war emboldens whoever threatened nuclear war.
I don't think this is a difficult point.
Your argument is that "well we *could* stand up to the bully in the future if we wanted to". But now we've said "but we don't really want to". And that message would be heard loud and clear. It would ensure, for example, that China would threaten to use nukes if its invasion of Taiwan was opposed.
Standing up makes us safer. Not just slightly safer, but massively so.
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
There's been no indication that the government will submit anything of the kind.
As I said below, it's perfectly possible for information handed over to the inquiry contains much more than just covid-relevant stuff (if, for example, it's in the same email or message), And redaction is apparently out.
I'm talking edge cases here; but edge cases are really important.
(as a manufactured example; say a conversation covered the reaction to covid, help we were giving to Ukraine, and future potential policies on privatising schools. The first part is relevant; the second is irrelevant and could prove dangerous if leaked; and the third is irrelevant and potentially politicaly incendiary.
It's perfectly possible, and fair, for a message to contain information on all of these. And the inquiry should certainly get the first part. But all the others as well?
Why not? You can make sure the information is transmitted securely. You give the information to a judge or a member of the judge's team. Judges are used to looking at all sorts of confidential information. The judge can decide what needs to be seen more widely. That's what judges do all the time.
Because some information may be secret, and intensely damaging if released. Not necessarily damaging to Boris, or the Conservatives, but the country. And that matters.
And pray, why do you automatically trust judges or their 'teams' with such precious information?
As I said below: there has to be a balance.
Judges handle confidential information all the time, as has been pointed out to you. There are very few cases where the information is so exceedingly sensitive that it wouldn't be shared with a judge in other circumstances. (Is the Justice and Security Act 2013 relevant here?) But, sure, OK, let's imagine we're dealing with that case...
If information is that exceedingly sensitive, one absolutely should not in any circumstances be discussing it on WhatsApp on a phone! Were Boris doing that, we should, to quote Donald Trump about another case of a politician not taking information security seriously enough, "lock h[im] up".
It does not need to be pointed out to me, as I know it. Thanks. But leaks happen as well; how do you think the media get their stories? People who should not talk, talk, for a variety of reasons. MICE comes into play here.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
Potentially more than that. And they all need not just to be read, but also considered for relevance., and cross-referenced with other information to look for inconsistencies.
I'm not saying that information should not be released; just that it's potentially reasonable for some information not to be. And there lies the devil.
We've already seen a potential leak, and are seeing piss-taking over things like post-it notes.
We don't know who has leaked information allegedly from the inquiry nor whether what has been leaked is accurate or complete. The 150 questions were sent to Boris Johnson. So any leak could have come from:-
1. The inquiry. 2. Boris Johnson 3. His lawyers 4. Someone close to Boris 5. Anyone else with whom Boris or anyone of 3 and 4 shared the information.
Indeed. But I'd argue - especially given the reactions to it on here tonight - that it was not in his interests, or his lawyers, or someone close to him, to release it.
But it highlights the problem.
I'm not saying a lot of information should be withheld; just that saying all information should be given is dangerous. Especially as it is a very wide trawl, and anyone wrongly deciding something wasn't relevant, and therefore shouldn't be given, might get into serious trouble, Which means there will be a tendency to give too much stuff.
I have done quite a few leak inquiries in my time.
I rather think that Boris - or someone close to him - is more likely to be the source of the leak than anyone else. Judges are usually very hot on maintaining confidentiality.
I'm afraid your reasoning for not giving information does not stack up to me. And it misses the key point which is who takes the decision on what is or is not relevant. As with other court proceedings, if there is a dispute about whether something should be disclosed, it is always the judge in the end who decides. There is no good reason why it should be different here.
If government wants to change the rules, it has the power to do so - but it would have to do that explicitly, through Parliament.
Absent that, there’s no good reason why they get to decide, without scrutiny, what is and isn’t relevant to an independent enquiry they legislated to set up.
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Possibly true but not supported by very much evidence. The only live case study suggests that nukez meanz VJ Day. Analogies with standing up to playground bullies are just analogies.
Ummm: the US didn't threaten nuclear weapons, it used them. And no-one else had them.
As far as pubs go, I would say the greatest pub in the United Kingdom is The Metropolitan, on top of Baker Street Station.
Now, some would point out that it is a Wetherspoon's, and this is true. The food is rubbish. The beer mediocre. The lights too bright. The atmosphere somewhat lacking.
But it has something that none of these other pubs has: some insanely great memories.
I would also like to nominate the Pride of Spitalfields, for the same reason.
I discovered this pub about 12 months ago. Don't know how I missed it before when it's right next to Baker Street tube entrance.
As far as pubs go, I would say the greatest pub in the United Kingdom is The Metropolitan, on top of Baker Street Station.
Now, some would point out that it is a Wetherspoon's, and this is true. The food is rubbish. The beer mediocre. The lights too bright. The atmosphere somewhat lacking.
But it has something that none of these other pubs has: some insanely great memories.
I would also like to nominate the Pride of Spitalfields, for the same reason.
I went to the Metropolitan with work colleagues, about 8 years ago. I ordered chicken and it was not properly defrosted - it was frozen in the centre.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
There's been no indication that the government will submit anything of the kind.
As I said below, it's perfectly possible for information handed over to the inquiry contains much more than just covid-relevant stuff (if, for example, it's in the same email or message), And redaction is apparently out.
I'm talking edge cases here; but edge cases are really important.
(as a manufactured example; say a conversation covered the reaction to covid, help we were giving to Ukraine, and future potential policies on privatising schools. The first part is relevant; the second is irrelevant and could prove dangerous if leaked; and the third is irrelevant and potentially politicaly incendiary.
It's perfectly possible, and fair, for a message to contain information on all of these. And the inquiry should certainly get the first part. But all the others as well?
Why not? You can make sure the information is transmitted securely. You give the information to a judge or a member of the judge's team. Judges are used to looking at all sorts of confidential information. The judge can decide what needs to be seen more widely. That's what judges do all the time.
Because some information may be secret, and intensely damaging if released. Not necessarily damaging to Boris, or the Conservatives, but the country. And that matters.
And pray, why do you automatically trust judges or their 'teams' with such precious information?
As I said below: there has to be a balance.
But you don't appear to be arguing a balance at all. You seem to be arguing that only the government can judge what is secret and relevant, and that no method of secret, restricted access to review its decisions on what is relevant is reasonable because there is always some possibility it will be revealed (which, I might add, is true even when it is simply held by the government - someone could always leak). So on your terms it appears no balancing of the information or risks is possible, other than by whim of the government.
What balance are you actually suggesting? Some people might say make everything public right now, some would say none of it should be, others are seeking a balance wherein the inquiry finds a way to review material so it is not reliant on the government's pinky promise nothing relevant has been missed. People might disagree with that suggestion but it is a suggested balance.
I believe it was in the Begum case that the Supreme Court made a very good and valid point about courts not substituting their own judgement on national security in place of the Minister, since that was not their role and they did not have all the information that the Minister did, but this is not that - it is whether the work of a formal inquiry cannot reasonably take place without reviewing information, even secretly, and the government essentially kneecapping it by declaring they can restrict anything with no oversight.
It is not overdramatic to suggest the inquiry might as well shut down if it cannot assess what is relevant - the government might be wrong about what is relevant, given inquiries might reveal they were wrong about other things too!
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Possibly true but not supported by very much evidence. The only live case study suggests that nukez meanz VJ Day. Analogies with standing up to playground bullies are just analogies.
It's supported by the entire history of the Cold War.
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Codswallop.
Just as a matter of interest, in your personal life, do you think that saying "yes sir, of course" to bullies and blackmailers decreases your chance of being bullied and blackmailed in the future?
I think it stops the blackmailer releasing their compromat in the immediate term, which is the purpose of paying the blackmailer. And if you have equal compromat on that person, that's fine and dandy.
The doctrine of MAD is really quite simple. Saying we shouldn't care because 'half of them won't go off' is certifiable.
Caving because you are scared of nuclear war emboldens whoever threatened nuclear war.
I don't think this is a difficult point.
Your argument is that "well we *could* stand up to the bully in the future if we wanted to". But now we've said "but we don't really want to". And that message would be heard loud and clear. It would ensure, for example, that China would threaten to use nukes if its invasion of Taiwan was opposed.
Standing up makes us safer. Not just slightly safer, but massively so.
Fine, but my personal experience of bullying has been 1. school bullies who were undoubtedly capable of beating the shit out of me if I told them to fuck off, and 2. workplace bullies who were unquestionably in a position to get me fired. I am pretty confident that that is the usual dynamic of bullying, and the ones who turn out to be utter cowards when confronted are the minority.
As far as pubs go, I would say the greatest pub in the United Kingdom is The Metropolitan, on top of Baker Street Station.
Now, some would point out that it is a Wetherspoon's, and this is true. The food is rubbish. The beer mediocre. The lights too bright. The atmosphere somewhat lacking.
But it has something that none of these other pubs has: some insanely great memories.
I would also like to nominate the Pride of Spitalfields, for the same reason.
I went to the Metropolitan with work colleagues, about 8 years ago. I ordered chicken and it was not properly defrosted - it was frozen in the centre.
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
Are you implying that Internet scrandies may not be fully read in to the latest intelligence on the readiness status of the Russian Strategic Missile Force?
Based on the fact that a lit of military equipment doesn't work, and particularly so in Russia, it is a reasonable projection. Not one that I would want to test though.
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Codswallop.
Just as a matter of interest, in your personal life, do you think that saying "yes sir, of course" to bullies and blackmailers decreases your chance of being bullied and blackmailed in the future?
I think it stops the blackmailer releasing their compromat in the immediate term, which is the purpose of paying the blackmailer. And if you have equal compromat on that person, that's fine and dandy.
The doctrine of MAD is really quite simple. Saying we shouldn't care because 'half of them won't go off' is certifiable.
Caving because you are scared of nuclear war emboldens whoever threatened nuclear war.
I don't think this is a difficult point.
Your argument is that "well we *could* stand up to the bully in the future if we wanted to". But now we've said "but we don't really want to". And that message would be heard loud and clear. It would ensure, for example, that China would threaten to use nukes if its invasion of Taiwan was opposed.
Standing up makes us safer. Not just slightly safer, but massively so.
Fine, but my personal experience of bullying has been 1. school bullies who were undoubtedly capable of beating the shit out of me if I told them to fuck off, and 2. workplace bullies who were unquestionably in a position to get me fired. I am pretty confident that that is the usual dynamic of bullying, and the ones who turn out to be utter cowards when confronted are the minority.
In Putin's speech last February on the day when the tanks rolled in, he threatened any country that helped Ukraine with attack and said that orders to that effect had already been given. It was a bluff.
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
Are you implying that Internet scrandies may not be fully read in to the latest intelligence on the readiness status of the Russian Strategic Missile Force?
Thank goodness for the urban dictionary.
My point is that however much is or isn't ready, betting the future of human life on earth on some glib assumptions about 'crappy Soviet kit' is nuclear grade stupid.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
There's been no indication that the government will submit anything of the kind.
As I said below, it's perfectly possible for information handed over to the inquiry contains much more than just covid-relevant stuff (if, for example, it's in the same email or message), And redaction is apparently out.
I'm talking edge cases here; but edge cases are really important.
(as a manufactured example; say a conversation covered the reaction to covid, help we were giving to Ukraine, and future potential policies on privatising schools. The first part is relevant; the second is irrelevant and could prove dangerous if leaked; and the third is irrelevant and potentially politicaly incendiary.
It's perfectly possible, and fair, for a message to contain information on all of these. And the inquiry should certainly get the first part. But all the others as well?
Why not? You can make sure the information is transmitted securely. You give the information to a judge or a member of the judge's team. Judges are used to looking at all sorts of confidential information. The judge can decide what needs to be seen more widely. That's what judges do all the time.
Because some information may be secret, and intensely damaging if released. Not necessarily damaging to Boris, or the Conservatives, but the country. And that matters.
And pray, why do you automatically trust judges or their 'teams' with such precious information?
As I said below: there has to be a balance.
Judges handle confidential information all the time, as has been pointed out to you. There are very few cases where the information is so exceedingly sensitive that it wouldn't be shared with a judge in other circumstances. (Is the Justice and Security Act 2013 relevant here?) But, sure, OK, let's imagine we're dealing with that case...
If information is that exceedingly sensitive, one absolutely should not in any circumstances be discussing it on WhatsApp on a phone! Were Boris doing that, we should, to quote Donald Trump about another case of a politician not taking information security seriously enough, "lock h[im] up".
It does not need to be pointed out to me, as I know it. Thanks. But leaks happen as well; how do you think the media get their stories? People who should not talk, talk, for a variety of reasons. MICE comes into play here.
Again: it's a balancing of issues.
If one's concern is leaks, then one can do things to minimise leaks. Collate the redacted material. Set up a secure room in No. 10. Invite Baroness Hallett there. She cannot bring any recording materials. Show her the material. She can agree it is irrelevant to the Inquiry.
But it's not about leaks, is it? That's not the Govt's stated concern in this case, is it?
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
There's been no indication that the government will submit anything of the kind.
As I said below, it's perfectly possible for information handed over to the inquiry contains much more than just covid-relevant stuff (if, for example, it's in the same email or message), And redaction is apparently out.
I'm talking edge cases here; but edge cases are really important.
(as a manufactured example; say a conversation covered the reaction to covid, help we were giving to Ukraine, and future potential policies on privatising schools. The first part is relevant; the second is irrelevant and could prove dangerous if leaked; and the third is irrelevant and potentially politicaly incendiary.
It's perfectly possible, and fair, for a message to contain information on all of these. And the inquiry should certainly get the first part. But all the others as well?
Why not? You can make sure the information is transmitted securely. You give the information to a judge or a member of the judge's team. Judges are used to looking at all sorts of confidential information. The judge can decide what needs to be seen more widely. That's what judges do all the time.
Because some information may be secret, and intensely damaging if released. Not necessarily damaging to Boris, or the Conservatives, but the country. And that matters.
And pray, why do you automatically trust judges or their 'teams' with such precious information?
As I said below: there has to be a balance.
But you don't appear to be arguing a balance at all. You seem to be arguing that only the government can judge what is secret and relevant, and that no method of secret, restricted access to review its decisions on what is relevant is reasonable because there is always some possibility it will be revealed (which, I might add, is true even when it is simply held by the government - someone could always leak). So on your terms it appears no balancing of the information or risks is possible, other than by whim of the government.
What balance are you actually suggesting? Some people might say make everything public right now, some would say none of it should be, others are seeking a balance wherein the inquiry finds a way to review material so it is not reliant on the government's pinky promise nothing relevant has been missed. People might disagree with that suggestion but it is a suggested balance.
In which case, you are not arguing for a balance, either. You are talking about a massive amount of information on the government - unrelated to Covid - being given to third parties.
Things leak. It happens. The more people who know stuff, the more likely for a leak to occur. And the more damaging something might be, the more likely it is to be leaked (as there is more reason for it to be leaked).
Here's the thing. I have a lot of respect for judges. They have an important and difficult job to do. But I don't automatically trust judges (or their teams) - in the same way I don't automatically trust the police. Or children's TV presenters.
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
Are you implying that Internet scrandies may not be fully read in to the latest intelligence on the readiness status of the Russian Strategic Missile Force?
Thank goodness for the urban dictionary.
My point is that however much is or isn't ready, betting the future of human life on earth on some glib assumptions about 'crappy Soviet kit' is nuclear grade stupid.
I have a feeling that you would think differently if it were the USA making nuclear threats against Britain. I can't see you wanting to give in to that kind of bullying somehow.
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Codswallop.
Just as a matter of interest, in your personal life, do you think that saying "yes sir, of course" to bullies and blackmailers decreases your chance of being bullied and blackmailed in the future?
I think it stops the blackmailer releasing their compromat in the immediate term, which is the purpose of paying the blackmailer. And if you have equal compromat on that person, that's fine and dandy.
The doctrine of MAD is really quite simple. Saying we shouldn't care because 'half of them won't go off' is certifiable.
Caving because you are scared of nuclear war emboldens whoever threatened nuclear war.
I don't think this is a difficult point.
Your argument is that "well we *could* stand up to the bully in the future if we wanted to". But now we've said "but we don't really want to". And that message would be heard loud and clear. It would ensure, for example, that China would threaten to use nukes if its invasion of Taiwan was opposed.
Standing up makes us safer. Not just slightly safer, but massively so.
Fine, but my personal experience of bullying has been 1. school bullies who were undoubtedly capable of beating the shit out of me if I told them to fuck off, and 2. workplace bullies who were unquestionably in a position to get me fired. I am pretty confident that that is the usual dynamic of bullying, and the ones who turn out to be utter cowards when confronted are the minority.
It is certainly true that not all bullies are cowards (except in the sense it is a cowardly act to undertake), that is something we lie to ourselves about to make ourselves feel better and believe that if only we stood up they would stand down. It has happened, to be sure, but always? Nah. It brings to mind the joke about people being keen on sticking it to the man, but it turning out if you try it the man will stick it right back up you, painfully.
But the nuclear issue, whilst not analagous to petty bullying, does seem to play out in the way suggested, in that the threats come pretty thick and fast, even for really petty matters, and though the consequences of getting it wrong would be catastrophic, it is unquestionable that if authoritarian states are able to get away with conquest and slaughter thanks to their nuclear arsenals, then obviously they will do it whenever they think they can manage it.
People jesting about half the bombs not working doesn't mean the risk is not taken seriously, but people were arguing against helping Ukraine simply by providing small arms and money as helping them defend themselves at all would provoke Russia to even worse action, and they were wrong, so of course people speculate on pushing further back at the threats.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
There's been no indication that the government will submit anything of the kind.
As I said below, it's perfectly possible for information handed over to the inquiry contains much more than just covid-relevant stuff (if, for example, it's in the same email or message), And redaction is apparently out.
I'm talking edge cases here; but edge cases are really important.
(as a manufactured example; say a conversation covered the reaction to covid, help we were giving to Ukraine, and future potential policies on privatising schools. The first part is relevant; the second is irrelevant and could prove dangerous if leaked; and the third is irrelevant and potentially politicaly incendiary.
It's perfectly possible, and fair, for a message to contain information on all of these. And the inquiry should certainly get the first part. But all the others as well?
Why not? You can make sure the information is transmitted securely. You give the information to a judge or a member of the judge's team. Judges are used to looking at all sorts of confidential information. The judge can decide what needs to be seen more widely. That's what judges do all the time.
Because some information may be secret, and intensely damaging if released. Not necessarily damaging to Boris, or the Conservatives, but the country. And that matters.
And pray, why do you automatically trust judges or their 'teams' with such precious information?
As I said below: there has to be a balance.
Judges handle confidential information all the time, as has been pointed out to you. There are very few cases where the information is so exceedingly sensitive that it wouldn't be shared with a judge in other circumstances. (Is the Justice and Security Act 2013 relevant here?) But, sure, OK, let's imagine we're dealing with that case...
If information is that exceedingly sensitive, one absolutely should not in any circumstances be discussing it on WhatsApp on a phone! Were Boris doing that, we should, to quote Donald Trump about another case of a politician not taking information security seriously enough, "lock h[im] up".
It does not need to be pointed out to me, as I know it. Thanks. But leaks happen as well; how do you think the media get their stories? People who should not talk, talk, for a variety of reasons. MICE comes into play here.
Again: it's a balancing of issues.
If one's concern is leaks, then one can do things to minimise leaks. Collate the redacted material. Set up a secure room in No. 10. Invite Baroness Hallett there. She cannot bring any recording materials. Show her the material. She can agree it is irrelevant to the Inquiry.
But it's not about leaks, is it? That's not the Govt's stated concern in this case, is it?
I've no idea what the government's concerns are about this. I'm stating my view. By all means disagree with me; think I'm being a blooming fool if you want. But please don't think I'm trying to help this government.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
There's been no indication that the government will submit anything of the kind.
As I said below, it's perfectly possible for information handed over to the inquiry contains much more than just covid-relevant stuff (if, for example, it's in the same email or message), And redaction is apparently out.
I'm talking edge cases here; but edge cases are really important.
(as a manufactured example; say a conversation covered the reaction to covid, help we were giving to Ukraine, and future potential policies on privatising schools. The first part is relevant; the second is irrelevant and could prove dangerous if leaked; and the third is irrelevant and potentially politicaly incendiary.
It's perfectly possible, and fair, for a message to contain information on all of these. And the inquiry should certainly get the first part. But all the others as well?
Why not? You can make sure the information is transmitted securely. You give the information to a judge or a member of the judge's team. Judges are used to looking at all sorts of confidential information. The judge can decide what needs to be seen more widely. That's what judges do all the time.
Because some information may be secret, and intensely damaging if released. Not necessarily damaging to Boris, or the Conservatives, but the country. And that matters.
And pray, why do you automatically trust judges or their 'teams' with such precious information?
As I said below: there has to be a balance.
But you don't appear to be arguing a balance at all. You seem to be arguing that only the government can judge what is secret and relevant, and that no method of secret, restricted access to review its decisions on what is relevant is reasonable because there is always some possibility it will be revealed (which, I might add, is true even when it is simply held by the government - someone could always leak). So on your terms it appears no balancing of the information or risks is possible, other than by whim of the government.
What balance are you actually suggesting? Some people might say make everything public right now, some would say none of it should be, others are seeking a balance wherein the inquiry finds a way to review material so it is not reliant on the government's pinky promise nothing relevant has been missed. People might disagree with that suggestion but it is a suggested balance.
In which case, you are not arguing for a balance, either. You are talking about a massive amount of information on the government - unrelated to Covid - being given to third parties.
Things leak. It happens. The more people who know stuff, the more likely for a leak to occur. And the more damaging something might be, the more likely it is to be leaked (as there is more reason for it to be leaked).
Here's the thing. I have a lot of respect for judges. They have an important and difficult job to do. But I don't automatically trust judges (or their teams) - in the same way I don't automatically trust the police. Or children's TV presenters.
Or the Government...? You seem to automatically trust the Government is (a) right about everything, and (b) impervious to leaks themselves.
I bet she never ends up doing that community service either, or gets something ridiculous to count towards it.
To be fair, from the story in the BBC it sounds a genuine accident when drinking and handling firearms.
To be even fairer, the story also states the maximum prison sentence for manslaughter by negligence in Belize is only five years - no jail time at all, not even a year (in effect more like 4-6 months) for handling a gun whilst pissed and killing someone?
I don't believe in severe punishment, but a little incarceration for killing someone when negligent, as admitted in this case, seems reasonable.
It also sounds like a made up story - he handed his pissed friend his gun, for some reason, then asked for it back? At some point, Mr Jemmott handed her his gun to put aside.
She later told investigators that she had been drinking, and had fumbled with the Glock 17 after the police chief asked for it back, leading to an accidental discharge.
Yes, daft behaviour showing off your weapon to an attractive lady friend after a few drinks, but some men do such things.
And if the lady friend kills you accidentally during it a few months inside at least is not disproportionate.
What purpose would sending her to jail actually serve?
In general I agree with that stance when it comes to incarceration, but she literally killed someone and yet will face zero consequences whatsoever as she is rich enough that the fine is without any consequences and community service is a joke.
The justice system is not solely to do with punishing people, but there can still be at least some element of punishment for criminal acts, at the very least when they result in someone's death - the law includes the possibility of incarceration for the offence for a reason, and it is not a very lengthy one.
What even a few months inside might serve would be an indication being super rich doesn't mean you get away without any real punishment when you kill someone. If you accidentally kill someone with your car whilst drunk would it serve much purpose if you were put inside for 10 years? Not really. But one year (out in 6 months) for being criminally responsible for someone's death? Seems like purpose enough.
Do you actually know if she was treated differently to other people who had admitted the same offence? I think it is quite common around the world for this type of involuntary manslaughter to not result in jail time.
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
Are you implying that Internet scrandies may not be fully read in to the latest intelligence on the readiness status of the Russian Strategic Missile Force?
Thank goodness for the urban dictionary.
My point is that however much is or isn't ready, betting the future of human life on earth on some glib assumptions about 'crappy Soviet kit' is nuclear grade stupid.
I have a feeling that you would think differently if it were the USA making nuclear threats against Britain. I can't see you wanting to give in to that kind of bullying somehow.
Your feeling is damn wrong. If the US was threatening to nuke us, you'd best believe I'd be making no sudden moves, and giving them everything they wanted with a big smile.
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.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
Are you implying that Internet scrandies may not be fully read in to the latest intelligence on the readiness status of the Russian Strategic Missile Force?
Thank goodness for the urban dictionary.
My point is that however much is or isn't ready, betting the future of human life on earth on some glib assumptions about 'crappy Soviet kit' is nuclear grade stupid.
I have a feeling that you would think differently if it were the USA making nuclear threats against Britain. I can't see you wanting to give in to that kind of bullying somehow.
Your feeling is damn wrong. If the US was threatening to nuke us, you'd best believe I'd be making no sudden moves, and giving them everything they wanted with a big smile.
I will remind you of this the next time you suggest that we should act against their interests.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
There's been no indication that the government will submit anything of the kind.
As I said below, it's perfectly possible for information handed over to the inquiry contains much more than just covid-relevant stuff (if, for example, it's in the same email or message), And redaction is apparently out.
I'm talking edge cases here; but edge cases are really important.
(as a manufactured example; say a conversation covered the reaction to covid, help we were giving to Ukraine, and future potential policies on privatising schools. The first part is relevant; the second is irrelevant and could prove dangerous if leaked; and the third is irrelevant and potentially politicaly incendiary.
It's perfectly possible, and fair, for a message to contain information on all of these. And the inquiry should certainly get the first part. But all the others as well?
Why not? You can make sure the information is transmitted securely. You give the information to a judge or a member of the judge's team. Judges are used to looking at all sorts of confidential information. The judge can decide what needs to be seen more widely. That's what judges do all the time.
Because some information may be secret, and intensely damaging if released. Not necessarily damaging to Boris, or the Conservatives, but the country. And that matters.
And pray, why do you automatically trust judges or their 'teams' with such precious information?
As I said below: there has to be a balance.
But you don't appear to be arguing a balance at all. You seem to be arguing that only the government can judge what is secret and relevant, and that no method of secret, restricted access to review its decisions on what is relevant is reasonable because there is always some possibility it will be revealed (which, I might add, is true even when it is simply held by the government - someone could always leak). So on your terms it appears no balancing of the information or risks is possible, other than by whim of the government.
What balance are you actually suggesting? Some people might say make everything public right now, some would say none of it should be, others are seeking a balance wherein the inquiry finds a way to review material so it is not reliant on the government's pinky promise nothing relevant has been missed. People might disagree with that suggestion but it is a suggested balance.
In which case, you are not arguing for a balance, either. You are talking about a massive amount of information on the government - unrelated to Covid - being given to third parties.
Things leak. It happens. The more people who know stuff, the more likely for a leak to occur. And the more damaging something might be, the more likely it is to be leaked (as there is more reason for it to be leaked).
Here's the thing. I have a lot of respect for judges. They have an important and difficult job to do. But I don't automatically trust judges (or their teams) - in the same way I don't automatically trust the police. Or children's TV presenters.
Mine is a balance because it's a halfway between making all material public and not providing anything even secretly, by allowing some process of assessing it in a way to minimise leaks (yes you cannot stop all leaks).
Yours is nothing more than saying that in effect no information can ever be shared with anyone because leaks happen. You may say that is not what you are saying, but that is its effect when you say possibility of leaks means they should not provide it no matter what protections are put in place.
I would ask which is more damaging - that governments get an unfettered right to withhold information from an inquiry because of risk of leaks, or that in a controlled manner information is assessed for relevance by the group deemed responsible enough to undertake the inquiry in the first place, albeit this increases the number of people who might be able to leak?
You may say it depends on what the information potentially being leaked contains, but I would point out again that if it is so damaging that any risk of a leak is unacceptable, then we've already failed your test, since someone in government with access might already leak it (Big Dom for a start if he holds it)!
Indeed, the possibility of some disgruntled leaker doing so might increase if the government withholds stuff that is relevant but they say is not - which has to be a possibility at least as likely as a leak from the inquiry itself.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
There's been no indication that the government will submit anything of the kind.
As I said below, it's perfectly possible for information handed over to the inquiry contains much more than just covid-relevant stuff (if, for example, it's in the same email or message), And redaction is apparently out.
I'm talking edge cases here; but edge cases are really important.
(as a manufactured example; say a conversation covered the reaction to covid, help we were giving to Ukraine, and future potential policies on privatising schools. The first part is relevant; the second is irrelevant and could prove dangerous if leaked; and the third is irrelevant and potentially politicaly incendiary.
It's perfectly possible, and fair, for a message to contain information on all of these. And the inquiry should certainly get the first part. But all the others as well?
Why not? You can make sure the information is transmitted securely. You give the information to a judge or a member of the judge's team. Judges are used to looking at all sorts of confidential information. The judge can decide what needs to be seen more widely. That's what judges do all the time.
Because some information may be secret, and intensely damaging if released. Not necessarily damaging to Boris, or the Conservatives, but the country. And that matters.
And pray, why do you automatically trust judges or their 'teams' with such precious information?
As I said below: there has to be a balance.
Judges handle confidential information all the time, as has been pointed out to you. There are very few cases where the information is so exceedingly sensitive that it wouldn't be shared with a judge in other circumstances. (Is the Justice and Security Act 2013 relevant here?) But, sure, OK, let's imagine we're dealing with that case...
If information is that exceedingly sensitive, one absolutely should not in any circumstances be discussing it on WhatsApp on a phone! Were Boris doing that, we should, to quote Donald Trump about another case of a politician not taking information security seriously enough, "lock h[im] up".
It does not need to be pointed out to me, as I know it. Thanks. But leaks happen as well; how do you think the media get their stories? People who should not talk, talk, for a variety of reasons. MICE comes into play here.
Again: it's a balancing of issues.
If one's concern is leaks, then one can do things to minimise leaks. Collate the redacted material. Set up a secure room in No. 10. Invite Baroness Hallett there. She cannot bring any recording materials. Show her the material. She can agree it is irrelevant to the Inquiry.
But it's not about leaks, is it? That's not the Govt's stated concern in this case, is it?
I've no idea what the government's concerns are about this. I'm stating my view. By all means disagree with me; think I'm being a blooming fool if you want. But please don't think I'm trying to help this government.
Ah... I was somehow under the impression that we were discussing the actions of the Government and how those might impact on political opinion.
The Inquiry asked me for evidence, which I provided. The Government paid for a lawyer to advise me, which I found helpful. I'm glad the lawyer advising me did so based on their understanding of the law, like the Inquiries Act 2005, not on what JosiasJessop thinks should happen.
Comments
Keep going.
But every WhatsApp message has at least two parties, so how confident is Johnson that his dodgy WhatsApps won't start leaking out one be one?
Who is left in the Cabinet from when the Conservatives were in opposition? I make it Hunt, Gove, Wallace, Hands, Harper, Shapps, Mitchell, Davies, and most of them arrived in 2005. How many of them got into parliament by winning a seat off the other lot? Mordaunt, Shapps... is that it?
It's not a thing to be particularly ashamed of, it's what happens over time, but it doesn't help a government stay in touch.
Dems need to tell Senile Old Joe to stand down. Enough
1. The inquiry.
2. Boris Johnson
3. His lawyers
4. Someone close to Boris
5. Anyone else with whom Boris or anyone of 3 and 4 shared the information.
I don't believe in severe punishment, but a little incarceration for killing someone when negligent, as admitted in this case, seems reasonable.
It also sounds like a made up story - he handed his pissed friend his gun, for some reason, then asked for it back?
At some point, Mr Jemmott handed her his gun to put aside.
She later told investigators that she had been drinking, and had fumbled with the Glock 17 after the police chief asked for it back, leading to an accidental discharge.
Drinking and handling firearms? Sure, maybe jail time would be excessive.
Drinking and handling firearms and killing someone? Come on.
At UCL...
I could be being introduced to @Leon before year's end. That might be a tad embarrassing for us all.
Dartington, near Totnes, Devon. Overall pub of the year in Britain, 2019.....
https://youtu.be/IwYVKptqH_o
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1160442/Statement_of_Facts_and_Grounds_-_To_Publish.pdf
What is curious is that it does not focus on who makes the decision on whether something is relevant or not.
The other point to note is that the right to privacy is not one of those absolute rights in the ECHR, unlike, say, the right not to be subject to torture / degrading treatment. If you are involved in court proceedings, matters which you might think of as private lose that quality simply because they are - or may be evidence.
One final point: relevance is not determined simply by seeing whether a communication refers to Covid or not. What someone is doing - or where someone is - may be corroborative evidence or may provide evidence of why people were not where they should or doing what they should have been doing. Or it may provide evidence of their state of mind or explain why certain things were or were not done. Or it may contradict what they now say.
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/funeral-wake-erupted-bloody-brawl-3263313
https://masonsarmsstrawberrybank.co.uk/
Sea views, cheap and simple but delicious well cooked food. Live bands every week. Miles of gorgeous beach 20 yards away. Bus stop home outside. Bookies next door.
What's not to like?
Populism can unravel quickly. But its effects are long-lasting
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/06/01/scotland-has-been-on-a-ten-year-holiday-from-reality
That's what marks out the Spaniard's. It has all the agreeableness of a glorious country pub - eg the Heath - but it is basically in central London (or near enough)
(1)The chairman of an inquiry may by notice require a person to attend at a time and place stated in the notice—
(a) to give evidence;
(b) to produce any documents in his custody or under his control that relate to a matter in question at the inquiry;
(c) to produce any other thing in his custody or under his control for inspection, examination or testing by or on behalf of the inquiry panel.
(My bold)
So the relevance is not strictly a requirement according to the Act, surely?
https://www.theblacksmithsarms.com/
Or rather, 'had a fall'.
No apparent damage.
Not being 20 minutes from Soho is a positive boon for many.
But it highlights the problem.
I'm not saying a lot of information should be withheld; just that saying all information should be given is dangerous. Especially as it is a very wide trawl, and anyone wrongly deciding something wasn't relevant, and therefore shouldn't be given, might get into serious trouble, Which means there will be a tendency to give too much stuff.
I prefer ones without poncey menus and diners.
And with regulars who you know can handle themselves.
You have sparked a rush of evidence that shows that for all the talk of pub closures there are some magnificent ones dotted around the country. Great pubs will always thrive.
What do you want from a pub? Good drinks, good company, and a good atmosphere?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Inn,_Southampton
http://www.platformtavern.com/
A pub should have good food - properly good food - but no "fine dining" nonsense
So serve excellent local ingredients with imagination and intelligence, but don't worry about Michelin stars. Have good beer, decent wine and a garden or pretty yard (if possible)
Now, some would point out that it is a Wetherspoon's, and this is true. The food is rubbish. The beer mediocre. The lights too bright. The atmosphere somewhat lacking.
But it has something that none of these other pubs has: some insanely great memories.
I would also like to nominate the Pride of Spitalfields, for the same reason.
I'm talking edge cases here; but edge cases are really important.
(as a manufactured example; say a conversation covered the reaction to covid, help we were giving to Ukraine, and future potential policies on privatising schools. The first part is relevant; the second is irrelevant and could prove dangerous if leaked; and the third is irrelevant and potentially politicaly incendiary.
It's perfectly possible, and fair, for a message to contain information on all of these. And the inquiry should certainly get the first part. But all the others as well?
"If information is truly irrelevant then it will not need to be referred to or released."
It's already been made quite clear that not releasing information will be a serious matter, and that the government and civil service cannot decide what is relevant or not. For that reason, the tendency will be to do a CYA situation and release far too much. You know, just in case.
I rather think that Boris - or someone close to him - is more likely to be the source of the leak than anyone else. Judges are usually very hot on maintaining confidentiality.
I'm afraid your reasoning for not giving information does not stack up to me. And it misses the key point which is who takes the decision on what is or is not relevant. As with other court proceedings, if there is a dispute about whether something should be disclosed, it is always the judge in the end who decides. There is no good reason why it should be different here.
And pray, why do you automatically trust judges or their 'teams' with such precious information?
As I said below: there has to be a balance.
If "fine dining" is your aim, maybe a restaurant would be a better choice?
The Dog and Partridge at Calf Heath is remarkable for its old world charm.
The Punchbowl at Bridgnorth was very good for a very long time, but I haven't been recently.
If the Govt is concerned about particular messages, presumably they could ask that those messages in particular only go to the judge in charge.
The amount of material that's been redacted must be finite, or else the Govt must have equally employed large teams to do the redacting! We can presume the redacted material is manageable.
The Feathers at Hedley on the Hill, Northumberland takes some beating. Views to Scotland. Fine dining with entirely locally sourced ingredients.
Craft ales and a small, but excellent wine list. Catering for all budgets.
Excuse is that it is far too small a Hamlet to have both a pub and a restaurant.
It also has regulars who can handle themselves. And sheep.
I am unsurprised that is your view. Even though, as we can see from the reaction below, it damages Boris Johnson.
And the word 'usually' is important as well.
Again, I am not saying that a lot of information should be withheld or redacted. Just that it's perfectly feasible that there are cases when it will be dangerous for it to be given.
The doctrine of MAD is really quite simple. Saying we shouldn't care because 'half of them won't go off' is certifiable.
If information is that exceedingly sensitive, one absolutely should not in any circumstances be discussing it on WhatsApp on a phone! Were Boris doing that, we should, to quote Donald Trump about another case of a politician not taking information security seriously enough, "lock h[im] up".
The justice system is not solely to do with punishing people, but there can still be at least some element of punishment for criminal acts, at the very least when they result in someone's death - the law includes the possibility of incarceration for the offence for a reason, and it is not a very lengthy one.
What even a few months inside might serve would be an indication being super rich doesn't mean you get away without any real punishment when you kill someone. If you accidentally kill someone with your car whilst drunk would it serve much purpose if you were put inside for 10 years? Not really. But one year (out in 6 months) for being criminally responsible for someone's death? Seems like purpose enough.
I ordered chicken and it was not properly defrosted - it was frozen in the centre.
I don't think this is a difficult point.
Your argument is that "well we *could* stand up to the bully in the future if we wanted to". But now we've said "but we don't really want to". And that message would be heard loud and clear. It would ensure, for example, that China would threaten to use nukes if its invasion of Taiwan was opposed.
Standing up makes us safer. Not just slightly safer, but massively so.
Their Sunday lunch is excellent.
Again: it's a balancing of issues.
Absent that, there’s no good reason why they get to decide, without scrutiny, what is and isn’t relevant to an independent enquiry they legislated to set up.
So your analogy fails.
What balance are you actually suggesting? Some people might say make everything public right now, some would say none of it should be, others are seeking a balance wherein the inquiry finds a way to review material so it is not reliant on the government's pinky promise nothing relevant has been missed. People might disagree with that suggestion but it is a suggested balance.
I believe it was in the Begum case that the Supreme Court made a very good and valid point about courts not substituting their own judgement on national security in place of the Minister, since that was not their role and they did not have all the information that the Minister did, but this is not that - it is whether the work of a formal inquiry cannot reasonably take place without reviewing information, even secretly, and the government essentially kneecapping it by declaring they can restrict anything with no oversight.
It is not overdramatic to suggest the inquiry might as well shut down if it cannot assess what is relevant - the government might be wrong about what is relevant, given inquiries might reveal they were wrong about other things too!
My point is that however much is or isn't ready, betting the future of human life on earth on some glib assumptions about 'crappy Soviet kit' is nuclear grade stupid.
But it's not about leaks, is it? That's not the Govt's stated concern in this case, is it?
Things leak. It happens. The more people who know stuff, the more likely for a leak to occur. And the more damaging something might be, the more likely it is to be leaked (as there is more reason for it to be leaked).
Here's the thing. I have a lot of respect for judges. They have an important and difficult job to do. But I don't automatically trust judges (or their teams) - in the same way I don't automatically trust the police. Or children's TV presenters.
But the nuclear issue, whilst not analagous to petty bullying, does seem to play out in the way suggested, in that the threats come pretty thick and fast, even for really petty matters, and though the consequences of getting it wrong would be catastrophic, it is unquestionable that if authoritarian states are able to get away with conquest and slaughter thanks to their nuclear arsenals, then obviously they will do it whenever they think they can manage it.
People jesting about half the bombs not working doesn't mean the risk is not taken seriously, but people were arguing against helping Ukraine simply by providing small arms and money as helping them defend themselves at all would provoke Russia to even worse action, and they were wrong, so of course people speculate on pushing further back at the threats.
Yours is nothing more than saying that in effect no information can ever be shared with anyone because leaks happen. You may say that is not what you are saying, but that is its effect when you say possibility of leaks means they should not provide it no matter what protections are put in place.
I would ask which is more damaging - that governments get an unfettered right to withhold information from an inquiry because of risk of leaks, or that in a controlled manner information is assessed for relevance by the group deemed responsible enough to undertake the inquiry in the first place, albeit this increases the number of people who might be able to leak?
You may say it depends on what the information potentially being leaked contains, but I would point out again that if it is so damaging that any risk of a leak is unacceptable, then we've already failed your test, since someone in government with access might already leak it (Big Dom for a start if he holds it)!
Indeed, the possibility of some disgruntled leaker doing so might increase if the government withholds stuff that is relevant but they say is not - which has to be a possibility at least as likely as a leak from the inquiry itself.
The Inquiry asked me for evidence, which I provided. The Government paid for a lawyer to advise me, which I found helpful. I'm glad the lawyer advising me did so based on their understanding of the law, like the Inquiries Act 2005, not on what JosiasJessop thinks should happen.