Just back from a board meeting. At a beach restaurant followed by cocktails. Huzzah. Definitely not date night with wifey. We talked business. Both of our businesses...
Not a surprise if you've ever driven up the M74! Though they were 90% tree farms.
I just don't see the ishoo here. Provided the ground between the turbines is left to grow whatever it wants to grow it's doing pretty much the same job as the trees were. Net win.
Everyone knows that north Scotland is vast areas of pointless empty space, for very good reason. What is odd is that south Scotland is also vast and endless vistas of empty space, with the M74 going through the middle, with which you can do anything you like without bothering anyone. I have often wondered why, when in London 20 people live in a cupboard under the stairs paying £10,000 pa for it, the whole of agreeable but dull south Scotland is entirely empty.
By definition, people tend not to live in empty spaces.
Got that. Kant would call it an a priori analytic statement. All bachelors are unmarried too.
Hah yes!
My point really is that people congregate, cities are popular, most of us want to live close to others.
Of course. The mystery is why the entire of southern Scotland, agreeable, pleasing, on the way to Glasgow Edinburgh and Carlisle should not have developed large towns and even cities over 10 centuries. It's nice, spacious and empty. We assume its a law of nature that Scotland has 5m people and England has 55m. Scottish land in the north explains a difference, but not a tenfold one.
In south Scotland towns of 1,500 people are significant strategic centres. Langholm. Newtown St Boswells. Etc.
M74 is deceptive. A68 (etc) gives a different view - the Tweeddale woollen towns.
As absurd as it is in 2023, following Dere Street from Darlington to Edinburgh is the fastest driving route...
I am going to praise Andrew Bridgen and Laura Pidcock. Someone has to.
Why?
Andrew Bridgen made an allegation in the House of Commons yesterday on behalf of two of his constituents that by 2014 the Government (as well as the Post Office) had evidence that they had been wrongly convicted. Bear in mind that, if true, this was 5 years before the Bates case which blew the whole scandal wide open and led to the inquiry. Will the relevant Minister rebut this charge or let it lie? And if the latter, it raises some very serious questions about the government's handling of the compensation schemes since then. 9 years later Mr Bridgen's constituents still have received no compensation.
Laura Pidcock
In a Tweet she said this.
Something the Mayor of London, the Labour leader and the Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities have felt unable or unwilling to say.
It is obvious to ordinary common sense that a number of people must have known in their hearts that innocent people were being sent o prison as the PO scandal rolled on. Even if there was no other evidence the sudden plethora of 'people like us' suddenly being found dishonest by the same route must have rung bells.
BTW I am still puzzled about this, as in my family we have had old fashioned accountants with simple ways, and if 6d was missing you searched till it was sorted.
How is it possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone has stolen/fraudulently obtained money when as a matter of hard fact no-one has - there has been no fraud or theft and an old fashioned audit will be unable to show that actual money has actually disappeared.
How did this get past common sense, accountants, auditors, forensic investigators, prosecutors, defence lawyers, defence expert forensic accountants, judges and juries?
One of the reasons was because of a ruling made by one of the judges (and in line with a Law Commission recommendation) that computer evidence should be relied upon. In other words, the presumption was made that the Horizon software was working properly unless proved otherwise. This effectively reversed the burden of proof and made it pretty much impossible for subpostmasters to prove that the software was not working as it should be. It also shows up the wickedness of the Post Office because they knew that the software was not working and had bugs etc and lied to the defendants and the courts about this - repeatedly.
They failed to disclose to the defendants - in breach of all the rules - the information they had and that failure to disclose is happening to this day.
The stupidity of this assumption coupled with the wickedness of the Post Office is a large part of what caused this. Also very few of the defendants had the resources needed to pay for expert computer and accounting experts.
Thanks. I am a simple soul, so I still want to know: How can a proper audit show that in fact money has been misappropriated when it hasn't? Computers by making mistakes can show that money has appeared and disappeared when it hasn't. But a proper audit has to actually find the real stuff and the real transactions and make sure they add up.
Yes, that's got me too. Where did the 'missing' money go? Or did the issue relate to incorrect tallying of goods/services sold to make it look as if there should have been higher cash receipts?
@Benpointer. I think the books balanced in reality. However an error in the computer system said that there was £100 owed. Post Office management said that the post office managers must have pocketed the cash (a plausible assumption if Horizon is error free).
The subsequent human consequences is scandalous. Heads should roll.
Not a surprise if you've ever driven up the M74! Though they were 90% tree farms.
I just don't see the ishoo here. Provided the ground between the turbines is left to grow whatever it wants to grow it's doing pretty much the same job as the trees were. Net win.
Everyone knows that north Scotland is vast areas of pointless empty space, for very good reason. What is odd is that south Scotland is also vast and endless vistas of empty space, with the M74 going through the middle, with which you can do anything you like without bothering anyone. I have often wondered why, when in London 20 people live in a cupboard under the stairs paying £10,000 pa for it, the whole of agreeable but dull south Scotland is entirely empty.
By definition, people tend not to live in empty spaces.
Got that. Kant would call it an a priori analytic statement. All bachelors are unmarried too.
Hah yes!
My point really is that people congregate, cities are popular, most of us want to live close to others.
Of course. The mystery is why the entire of southern Scotland, agreeable, pleasing, on the way to Glasgow Edinburgh and Carlisle should not have developed large towns and even cities over 10 centuries. It's nice, spacious and empty. We assume its a law of nature that Scotland has 5m people and England has 55m. Scottish land in the north explains a difference, but not a tenfold one.
In south Scotland towns of 1,500 people are significant strategic centres. Langholm. Newtown St Boswells. Etc.
I was driving up the A74/M74 last week and much of that border area between Carlisle and Glasgow is unproductive moorland, quite bleak. Towns needed a productive agricultural hinterland and/or a navigable river or coastal access to develop. Where that was available - the Clyde valley, the Firth of Forth and Firth of Tay, towns and cities did develop. Also, AIUI, for much of the late middle ages and early modern period the so-called Debatable Lands between England and Scotland were a lawless area where it was pretty much impossible to build a settlement. It's interesting how Scotland's population has fallen relative to England's over the last couple of centuries though. England - and especially London - just has more economic opportunities. I won't be the last Scots-born person to migrate south. Geography matters and Scotland is further from the action than England is - perhaps why the Scots understood better the folly of Brexit.
I loathed Barbie as a child. Loathed dolls, come to think of it. A film of it sounds utterly ghastly.
I've assumed from them managing to nab an acclaimed director that the intention was to make a glorified marketing campaign at least relatively ambitious, which can work, particularly if you can then defend obvious marketing as being ironic or providing commentary in some way. I saw a content description about the film containing commentary about the patriarchy.
They've certainly done a great job at providing awareness that the film exists (you'd be surprised how many movies sneak up even on those who go to the cinema a lot), whether people will actually turn out will be very interesting.
For a while now, Mattel have been pushing the idea of Barbie as inclusive and feminist - they do lots of PR with female scientists, have released dolls with various disabilities, etc. The movie is the latest effort, and reportedly makes great play of the irony of a film with a broadly feminist message being made about a toy that despite tonnes of marketing trying to shift perceptions, is seen as a bit of a regressive throwback. I think the central joke is that Barbie leaves her 'perfect world' where feminism is entirely unnecessary as everyone is happy and enter the 'real' world. It seems to be going for The LEGO Movie thing of having its cake and eating it - yes we're trying to flog you an overpriced toy - but we're doing it with a wink that shows we get you know that. It'll likely do very well now it's become something of an 'event' movie those who aren't necessarily sold on the concept want to see to see what all the fuss is about and discuss with mates.
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Let's have a new law saying businesses must accept cash.
Excessive. Every random café does not need to be doing runs to the local bank branch when neither party wants to handle cash. If it's too inefficient for the government to provide essential cash services directly, it should at least compensate those who bear the cost.
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Let's have a new law saying businesses must accept cash.
Excessive. Every random café does not need to be doing runs to the local bank branch when neither party wants to handle cash. If it's too inefficient for the government to provide essential cash services directly, it should at least compensate those who bear the cost.
They were doing it 10 years ago, so they can do it now.
I am going to praise Andrew Bridgen and Laura Pidcock. Someone has to.
Why?
Andrew Bridgen made an allegation in the House of Commons yesterday on behalf of two of his constituents that by 2014 the Government (as well as the Post Office) had evidence that they had been wrongly convicted. Bear in mind that, if true, this was 5 years before the Bates case which blew the whole scandal wide open and led to the inquiry. Will the relevant Minister rebut this charge or let it lie? And if the latter, it raises some very serious questions about the government's handling of the compensation schemes since then. 9 years later Mr Bridgen's constituents still have received no compensation.
Laura Pidcock
In a Tweet she said this.
Something the Mayor of London, the Labour leader and the Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities have felt unable or unwilling to say.
It is obvious to ordinary common sense that a number of people must have known in their hearts that innocent people were being sent o prison as the PO scandal rolled on. Even if there was no other evidence the sudden plethora of 'people like us' suddenly being found dishonest by the same route must have rung bells.
BTW I am still puzzled about this, as in my family we have had old fashioned accountants with simple ways, and if 6d was missing you searched till it was sorted.
How is it possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone has stolen/fraudulently obtained money when as a matter of hard fact no-one has - there has been no fraud or theft and an old fashioned audit will be unable to show that actual money has actually disappeared.
How did this get past common sense, accountants, auditors, forensic investigators, prosecutors, defence lawyers, defence expert forensic accountants, judges and juries?
One of the reasons was because of a ruling made by one of the judges (and in line with a Law Commission recommendation) that computer evidence should be relied upon. In other words, the presumption was made that the Horizon software was working properly unless proved otherwise. This effectively reversed the burden of proof and made it pretty much impossible for subpostmasters to prove that the software was not working as it should be. It also shows up the wickedness of the Post Office because they knew that the software was not working and had bugs etc and lied to the defendants and the courts about this - repeatedly.
They failed to disclose to the defendants - in breach of all the rules - the information they had and that failure to disclose is happening to this day.
The stupidity of this assumption coupled with the wickedness of the Post Office is a large part of what caused this. Also very few of the defendants had the resources needed to pay for expert computer and accounting experts.
Thanks. I am a simple soul, so I still want to know: How can a proper audit show that in fact money has been misappropriated when it hasn't? Computers by making mistakes can show that money has appeared and disappeared when it hasn't. But a proper audit has to actually find the real stuff and the real transactions and make sure they add up.
Yes, that's got me too. Where did the 'missing' money go? Or did the issue relate to incorrect tallying of goods/services sold to make it look as if there should have been higher cash receipts?
@Benpointer. I think the books balanced in reality. However an error in the computer system said that there was £100 owed. Post Office management said that the post office managers must have pocketed the cash (a plausible assumption if Horizon is error free).
The subsequent human consequences is scandalous. Heads should roll.
But if the books balanced in reality but they were getting £100 from the subpostmasters (they didn't just prosecute, they also demanded payment of the "missing" money) there would have been an excess. So how was that accounted for?
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Let's have a new law saying businesses must accept cash.
Excessive. Every random café does not need to be doing runs to the local bank branch when neither party wants to handle cash. If it's too inefficient for the government to provide essential cash services directly, it should at least compensate those who bear the cost.
They were doing it 10 years ago, so they can do it now.
For low-margin service businesses, technology is offsetting other costs that have grown, like the minimum wage, which is far higher than even five years ago.
I am going to praise Andrew Bridgen and Laura Pidcock. Someone has to.
Why?
Andrew Bridgen made an allegation in the House of Commons yesterday on behalf of two of his constituents that by 2014 the Government (as well as the Post Office) had evidence that they had been wrongly convicted. Bear in mind that, if true, this was 5 years before the Bates case which blew the whole scandal wide open and led to the inquiry. Will the relevant Minister rebut this charge or let it lie? And if the latter, it raises some very serious questions about the government's handling of the compensation schemes since then. 9 years later Mr Bridgen's constituents still have received no compensation.
Laura Pidcock
In a Tweet she said this.
Something the Mayor of London, the Labour leader and the Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities have felt unable or unwilling to say.
It is obvious to ordinary common sense that a number of people must have known in their hearts that innocent people were being sent o prison as the PO scandal rolled on. Even if there was no other evidence the sudden plethora of 'people like us' suddenly being found dishonest by the same route must have rung bells.
BTW I am still puzzled about this, as in my family we have had old fashioned accountants with simple ways, and if 6d was missing you searched till it was sorted.
How is it possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone has stolen/fraudulently obtained money when as a matter of hard fact no-one has - there has been no fraud or theft and an old fashioned audit will be unable to show that actual money has actually disappeared.
How did this get past common sense, accountants, auditors, forensic investigators, prosecutors, defence lawyers, defence expert forensic accountants, judges and juries?
One of the reasons was because of a ruling made by one of the judges (and in line with a Law Commission recommendation) that computer evidence should be relied upon. In other words, the presumption was made that the Horizon software was working properly unless proved otherwise. This effectively reversed the burden of proof and made it pretty much impossible for subpostmasters to prove that the software was not working as it should be. It also shows up the wickedness of the Post Office because they knew that the software was not working and had bugs etc and lied to the defendants and the courts about this - repeatedly.
They failed to disclose to the defendants - in breach of all the rules - the information they had and that failure to disclose is happening to this day.
The stupidity of this assumption coupled with the wickedness of the Post Office is a large part of what caused this. Also very few of the defendants had the resources needed to pay for expert computer and accounting experts.
Thanks. I am a simple soul, so I still want to know: How can a proper audit show that in fact money has been misappropriated when it hasn't? Computers by making mistakes can show that money has appeared and disappeared when it hasn't. But a proper audit has to actually find the real stuff and the real transactions and make sure they add up.
Yes, that's got me too. Where did the 'missing' money go? Or did the issue relate to incorrect tallying of goods/services sold to make it look as if there should have been higher cash receipts?
@Benpointer. I think the books balanced in reality. However an error in the computer system said that there was £100 owed. Post Office management said that the post office managers must have pocketed the cash (a plausible assumption if Horizon is error free).
The subsequent human consequences is scandalous. Heads should roll.
Bringing 2 subthreads together, the allegation has to be that the cash they were pocketing, was cash. This whole scandal would not (I am guessing) have occurred in a no-cash economy.
Mind you it’s kinda time we had another PB death. When was the last one? Mark Senior?
@nichomar died some time after March 2021. We have had another fatality since but I did not make a contemporaneous note and forgot, and repeated requests of the PB brains trust have been ignored - guys, c'mon. There have also been multiple deaths of relatives and spouses but I don't keep track of them.
I assume for many of us, if we die suddenly, no one's gonna log on to PB to mention the fact.
Mrs P. regards my PB addiction as a mildly embarrassing eccentricity, best not mentioned in company. Letting you lot know of my demise would not be on her to do list tbh.
I actually have a file on my computer my son knows about, people to contact, how to contact them, passwords etc
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Let's have a new law saying businesses must accept cash.
Excessive. Every random café does not need to be doing runs to the local bank branch when neither party wants to handle cash. If it's too inefficient for the government to provide essential cash services directly, it should at least compensate those who bear the cost.
They were doing it 10 years ago, so they can do it now.
So if something was done in the past it must be maintained forever then?
Why should businesses be forced to cater to your preferences?
I am going to praise Andrew Bridgen and Laura Pidcock. Someone has to.
Why?
Andrew Bridgen made an allegation in the House of Commons yesterday on behalf of two of his constituents that by 2014 the Government (as well as the Post Office) had evidence that they had been wrongly convicted. Bear in mind that, if true, this was 5 years before the Bates case which blew the whole scandal wide open and led to the inquiry. Will the relevant Minister rebut this charge or let it lie? And if the latter, it raises some very serious questions about the government's handling of the compensation schemes since then. 9 years later Mr Bridgen's constituents still have received no compensation.
Laura Pidcock
In a Tweet she said this.
Something the Mayor of London, the Labour leader and the Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities have felt unable or unwilling to say.
It is obvious to ordinary common sense that a number of people must have known in their hearts that innocent people were being sent o prison as the PO scandal rolled on. Even if there was no other evidence the sudden plethora of 'people like us' suddenly being found dishonest by the same route must have rung bells.
BTW I am still puzzled about this, as in my family we have had old fashioned accountants with simple ways, and if 6d was missing you searched till it was sorted.
How is it possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone has stolen/fraudulently obtained money when as a matter of hard fact no-one has - there has been no fraud or theft and an old fashioned audit will be unable to show that actual money has actually disappeared.
How did this get past common sense, accountants, auditors, forensic investigators, prosecutors, defence lawyers, defence expert forensic accountants, judges and juries?
One of the reasons was because of a ruling made by one of the judges (and in line with a Law Commission recommendation) that computer evidence should be relied upon. In other words, the presumption was made that the Horizon software was working properly unless proved otherwise. This effectively reversed the burden of proof and made it pretty much impossible for subpostmasters to prove that the software was not working as it should be. It also shows up the wickedness of the Post Office because they knew that the software was not working and had bugs etc and lied to the defendants and the courts about this - repeatedly.
They failed to disclose to the defendants - in breach of all the rules - the information they had and that failure to disclose is happening to this day.
The stupidity of this assumption coupled with the wickedness of the Post Office is a large part of what caused this. Also very few of the defendants had the resources needed to pay for expert computer and accounting experts.
Thanks. I am a simple soul, so I still want to know: How can a proper audit show that in fact money has been misappropriated when it hasn't? Computers by making mistakes can show that money has appeared and disappeared when it hasn't. But a proper audit has to actually find the real stuff and the real transactions and make sure they add up.
Yes, that's got me too. Where did the 'missing' money go? Or did the issue relate to incorrect tallying of goods/services sold to make it look as if there should have been higher cash receipts?
@Benpointer. I think the books balanced in reality. However an error in the computer system said that there was £100 owed. Post Office management said that the post office managers must have pocketed the cash (a plausible assumption if Horizon is error free).
The subsequent human consequences is scandalous. Heads should roll.
Bringing 2 subthreads together, the allegation has to be that the cash they were pocketing, was cash. This whole scandal would not (I am guessing) have occurred in a no-cash economy.
You guess wrong. Fraud and miscarriages of justice and brainless reliance on technological systems will happen in all sorts of societies. See crypto for instance.
I loathed Barbie as a child. Loathed dolls, come to think of it. A film of it sounds utterly ghastly.
I was also more of a Sindy fan. Down with this 'Barbie' nonsense,
And the weird dolls which 'grew' hair that you were supposed to brush, or dolls that cried for arbitrary reasons, or (as I remember) 'drank milk'. All the greats of earlier times.
There are so many ways to f**k around with children's minds. And make their parents pay for it. Praise be.
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
If you read the Coutts dossier it’s clear it has nothing to do with PEP or AML issues. They say that Farage had already been downgraded to being a low-risk PEP and would no longer be considered a PEP at all soon.
I am going to praise Andrew Bridgen and Laura Pidcock. Someone has to.
Why?
Andrew Bridgen made an allegation in the House of Commons yesterday on behalf of two of his constituents that by 2014 the Government (as well as the Post Office) had evidence that they had been wrongly convicted. Bear in mind that, if true, this was 5 years before the Bates case which blew the whole scandal wide open and led to the inquiry. Will the relevant Minister rebut this charge or let it lie? And if the latter, it raises some very serious questions about the government's handling of the compensation schemes since then. 9 years later Mr Bridgen's constituents still have received no compensation.
Laura Pidcock
In a Tweet she said this.
Something the Mayor of London, the Labour leader and the Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities have felt unable or unwilling to say.
It is obvious to ordinary common sense that a number of people must have known in their hearts that innocent people were being sent o prison as the PO scandal rolled on. Even if there was no other evidence the sudden plethora of 'people like us' suddenly being found dishonest by the same route must have rung bells.
BTW I am still puzzled about this, as in my family we have had old fashioned accountants with simple ways, and if 6d was missing you searched till it was sorted.
How is it possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone has stolen/fraudulently obtained money when as a matter of hard fact no-one has - there has been no fraud or theft and an old fashioned audit will be unable to show that actual money has actually disappeared.
How did this get past common sense, accountants, auditors, forensic investigators, prosecutors, defence lawyers, defence expert forensic accountants, judges and juries?
One of the reasons was because of a ruling made by one of the judges (and in line with a Law Commission recommendation) that computer evidence should be relied upon. In other words, the presumption was made that the Horizon software was working properly unless proved otherwise. This effectively reversed the burden of proof and made it pretty much impossible for subpostmasters to prove that the software was not working as it should be. It also shows up the wickedness of the Post Office because they knew that the software was not working and had bugs etc and lied to the defendants and the courts about this - repeatedly.
They failed to disclose to the defendants - in breach of all the rules - the information they had and that failure to disclose is happening to this day.
The stupidity of this assumption coupled with the wickedness of the Post Office is a large part of what caused this. Also very few of the defendants had the resources needed to pay for expert computer and accounting experts.
Thanks. I am a simple soul, so I still want to know: How can a proper audit show that in fact money has been misappropriated when it hasn't? Computers by making mistakes can show that money has appeared and disappeared when it hasn't. But a proper audit has to actually find the real stuff and the real transactions and make sure they add up.
Yes, that's got me too. Where did the 'missing' money go? Or did the issue relate to incorrect tallying of goods/services sold to make it look as if there should have been higher cash receipts?
@Benpointer. I think the books balanced in reality. However an error in the computer system said that there was £100 owed. Post Office management said that the post office managers must have pocketed the cash (a plausible assumption if Horizon is error free).
The subsequent human consequences is scandalous. Heads should roll.
Bringing 2 subthreads together, the allegation has to be that the cash they were pocketing, was cash. This whole scandal would not (I am guessing) have occurred in a no-cash economy.
You guess wrong. Fraud and miscarriages of justice and brainless reliance on technological systems will happen in all sorts of societies. See crypto for instance.
Not at all relevant. Crypto is all in cyberspace. The victims of the post office scandal were universally small time unsophisticated, disproportionately BAME, and it seems much the most probable allegation being made against them was that they were siphoning cash, as cash. Do you have any evidence to the contrary, or indeed any plausible suggestion as to what other allegation was being made? You sound very like some one who has a City-of-London shaped anti fraud hammer, trying to make small-scale micro businesses look like City-of-London nails.
Mind you it’s kinda time we had another PB death. When was the last one? Mark Senior?
@nichomar died some time after March 2021. We have had another fatality since but I did not make a contemporaneous note and forgot, and repeated requests of the PB brains trust have been ignored - guys, c'mon. There have also been multiple deaths of relatives and spouses but I don't keep track of them.
I assume for many of us, if we die suddenly, no one's gonna log on to PB to mention the fact.
Mrs P. regards my PB addiction as a mildly embarrassing eccentricity, best not mentioned in company. Letting you lot know of my demise would not be on her to do list tbh.
I actually have a file on my computer my son knows about, people to contact, how to contact them, passwords etc
By definition I cannot tell you the number of PBers who die and their death is not reported to PB. But of those who are reported, it is usually by friends or family members. @Plato's death was reported by her brother, @MarkSenior and @SBS were both eulogised on PB by OGH, @nichomar's death was reported by his daughter, I can't remember how we found out that @calum had died.
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Let's have a new law saying businesses must accept cash.
I am off to Latitude Festival this weekend. It is a cashless festival.
OK boomer
Kiefer Sutherland seems to be getting around, I am seeing him - probably not for the whole set - in the Highlands next w/e.
Yes, I have grown old alongside the festivals. Good line up of interesting young acts, with a few older ones.
Looks like it will be a muddy one.
First time I went to Glastonbury my friend was spending an awful lot of time in the Krishna tent (she was also... 'quit relaxed' at the time). This was in 198hrmmblughcough.
After a while I was about to pluck up the courage to talk to someone 'proper' about it when a monk tapped me on the shoulder and said "We're a bit worried about your friend. She seems to be spending an awful lot of time in here and missing out on all the fun. Could you help us get her out of the tent?"
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Let's have a new law saying businesses must accept cash.
I am off to Latitude Festival this weekend. It is a cashless festival.
OK boomer
Kiefer Sutherland seems to be getting around, I am seeing him - probably not for the whole set - in the Highlands next w/e.
Yes, I have grown old alongside the festivals. Good line up of interesting young acts, with a few older ones.
Looks like it will be a muddy one.
First time I went to Glastonbury my friend was spending an awful lot of time in the Krishna tent (she was also... 'quit relaxed' at the time). This was in 198hrmmblughcough.
After a while I was about to pluck up the courage to talk to someone 'proper' about it when a monk tapped me on the shoulder and said "We're a bit worried about your friend. She seems to be spending an awful lot of time in here and missing out on all the fun. Could you help us get her out of the tent?"
Before your edit I read 19 as [20] '19. Punctuation is crucial.
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
But what a delight to see a pompous arse who will have have spent the last 42 years boasting that he banked with Coutts finding himself black balled because they found him to be an unpleasant racist with insufficient funds and therefore an extremely poor advert for their service.
What would Anabob do if a tradesman offered him money off a job for cash payment?
a) rush to the nearest cash machine b) just refuse c) refuse and explain to the tradesman the benefits of a cashless society
d) refuse and explain to the tradesman the benefits of living in a country where people pay their taxes.
Do people actually lecture other people offering cash discounts on this?
I can understand insisting on paying the higher price, to make sure one isn't enabling tax dodging, but lecturing - or reporting, as suggested earlier - someone for it seems tedious or harsh
If a taxi driver told me twelve quid with the card or ten quid cash and I had a tenner, I wouldn't have a tenner any more
I can't imagine being the person that would start talking about tax
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
But what a delight to see a pompous arse who will have have spent the last 42 years boasting that he banked with Coutts finding himself black balled because they found him to be an unpleasant racist with insufficient funds and therefore an extremely poor advert for their service.
I am going to praise Andrew Bridgen and Laura Pidcock. Someone has to.
Why?
Andrew Bridgen made an allegation in the House of Commons yesterday on behalf of two of his constituents that by 2014 the Government (as well as the Post Office) had evidence that they had been wrongly convicted. Bear in mind that, if true, this was 5 years before the Bates case which blew the whole scandal wide open and led to the inquiry. Will the relevant Minister rebut this charge or let it lie? And if the latter, it raises some very serious questions about the government's handling of the compensation schemes since then. 9 years later Mr Bridgen's constituents still have received no compensation.
Laura Pidcock
In a Tweet she said this.
Something the Mayor of London, the Labour leader and the Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities have felt unable or unwilling to say.
It is obvious to ordinary common sense that a number of people must have known in their hearts that innocent people were being sent o prison as the PO scandal rolled on. Even if there was no other evidence the sudden plethora of 'people like us' suddenly being found dishonest by the same route must have rung bells.
BTW I am still puzzled about this, as in my family we have had old fashioned accountants with simple ways, and if 6d was missing you searched till it was sorted.
How is it possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone has stolen/fraudulently obtained money when as a matter of hard fact no-one has - there has been no fraud or theft and an old fashioned audit will be unable to show that actual money has actually disappeared.
How did this get past common sense, accountants, auditors, forensic investigators, prosecutors, defence lawyers, defence expert forensic accountants, judges and juries?
One of the reasons was because of a ruling made by one of the judges (and in line with a Law Commission recommendation) that computer evidence should be relied upon. In other words, the presumption was made that the Horizon software was working properly unless proved otherwise. This effectively reversed the burden of proof and made it pretty much impossible for subpostmasters to prove that the software was not working as it should be. It also shows up the wickedness of the Post Office because they knew that the software was not working and had bugs etc and lied to the defendants and the courts about this - repeatedly.
They failed to disclose to the defendants - in breach of all the rules - the information they had and that failure to disclose is happening to this day.
The stupidity of this assumption coupled with the wickedness of the Post Office is a large part of what caused this. Also very few of the defendants had the resources needed to pay for expert computer and accounting experts.
Thanks. I am a simple soul, so I still want to know: How can a proper audit show that in fact money has been misappropriated when it hasn't? Computers by making mistakes can show that money has appeared and disappeared when it hasn't. But a proper audit has to actually find the real stuff and the real transactions and make sure they add up.
Yes, that's got me too. Where did the 'missing' money go? Or did the issue relate to incorrect tallying of goods/services sold to make it look as if there should have been higher cash receipts?
@Benpointer. I think the books balanced in reality. However an error in the computer system said that there was £100 owed. Post Office management said that the post office managers must have pocketed the cash (a plausible assumption if Horizon is error free).
The subsequent human consequences is scandalous. Heads should roll.
Bringing 2 subthreads together, the allegation has to be that the cash they were pocketing, was cash. This whole scandal would not (I am guessing) have occurred in a no-cash economy.
You guess wrong. Fraud and miscarriages of justice and brainless reliance on technological systems will happen in all sorts of societies. See crypto for instance.
Not at all relevant. Crypto is all in cyberspace. The victims of the post office scandal were universally small time unsophisticated, disproportionately BAME, and it seems much the most probable allegation being made against them was that they were siphoning cash, as cash. Do you have any evidence to the contrary, or indeed any plausible suggestion as to what other allegation was being made? You sound very like some one who has a City-of-London shaped anti fraud hammer, trying to make small-scale micro businesses look like City-of-London nails.
You misunderstand me. Or I have not explained myself well.
The allegations against the postmasters will likely have been (I would need to check) that some of the allegedly missing money was siphoned off as cash.
What I don't know is, even if all the transactions were electronic, whether the malfunctioning Horizon software would still have shown up alleged discrepancies. Or indeed whether some of the allegations were that the money had been transferred electronically to the postmasters accounts.
My point was a different one - frauds and miscarriages of justice are not going to disappear in a cashless society and it is foolish to assume so.
I've always liked legal judgements, for the humour of describing everything in formal ways no matter how ridiculous
Was reading one about an effort by Trump's lawyers to bring the Manhattan cases into Federal Court, which hinges on some rather dry technical legal tests, but does throw up some amusing lines
(or would be amusing, but that legal stonewalling like this presumably makes bringing things to trial prior to his confirmation as nominee that much harder) Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President's official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the President's official duties...
Trump's argument is conclusory. No evidence was presented to support it, and Trump has not explained how hiring and making payments to a personal attorney to handle personal affairs carries out a constitutional duty. Reimbursing Cohen for advancing hush money to Stephanie Clifford cannot be considered the performance of a constitutional duty. Falsifying business records to hide such reimbursement, and to transform the reimbursement into a business expense for Trump and income to Cohen, likewise does not relate to a presidential duty https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.43.0_1.pdf
At Euston station this evening, one of the food places inside the station had a sign outside saying "cash only". Obviously their card machines had broken down.
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
If you read the Coutts dossier it’s clear it has nothing to do with PEP or AML issues. They say that Farage had already been downgraded to being a low-risk PEP and would no longer be considered a PEP at all soon.
I am going to praise Andrew Bridgen and Laura Pidcock. Someone has to.
Why?
Andrew Bridgen made an allegation in the House of Commons yesterday on behalf of two of his constituents that by 2014 the Government (as well as the Post Office) had evidence that they had been wrongly convicted. Bear in mind that, if true, this was 5 years before the Bates case which blew the whole scandal wide open and led to the inquiry. Will the relevant Minister rebut this charge or let it lie? And if the latter, it raises some very serious questions about the government's handling of the compensation schemes since then. 9 years later Mr Bridgen's constituents still have received no compensation.
Laura Pidcock
In a Tweet she said this.
Something the Mayor of London, the Labour leader and the Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities have felt unable or unwilling to say.
It is obvious to ordinary common sense that a number of people must have known in their hearts that innocent people were being sent o prison as the PO scandal rolled on. Even if there was no other evidence the sudden plethora of 'people like us' suddenly being found dishonest by the same route must have rung bells.
BTW I am still puzzled about this, as in my family we have had old fashioned accountants with simple ways, and if 6d was missing you searched till it was sorted.
How is it possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone has stolen/fraudulently obtained money when as a matter of hard fact no-one has - there has been no fraud or theft and an old fashioned audit will be unable to show that actual money has actually disappeared.
How did this get past common sense, accountants, auditors, forensic investigators, prosecutors, defence lawyers, defence expert forensic accountants, judges and juries?
One of the reasons was because of a ruling made by one of the judges (and in line with a Law Commission recommendation) that computer evidence should be relied upon. In other words, the presumption was made that the Horizon software was working properly unless proved otherwise. This effectively reversed the burden of proof and made it pretty much impossible for subpostmasters to prove that the software was not working as it should be. It also shows up the wickedness of the Post Office because they knew that the software was not working and had bugs etc and lied to the defendants and the courts about this - repeatedly.
They failed to disclose to the defendants - in breach of all the rules - the information they had and that failure to disclose is happening to this day.
The stupidity of this assumption coupled with the wickedness of the Post Office is a large part of what caused this. Also very few of the defendants had the resources needed to pay for expert computer and accounting experts.
Thanks. I am a simple soul, so I still want to know: How can a proper audit show that in fact money has been misappropriated when it hasn't? Computers by making mistakes can show that money has appeared and disappeared when it hasn't. But a proper audit has to actually find the real stuff and the real transactions and make sure they add up.
Yes, that's got me too. Where did the 'missing' money go? Or did the issue relate to incorrect tallying of goods/services sold to make it look as if there should have been higher cash receipts?
@Benpointer. I think the books balanced in reality. However an error in the computer system said that there was £100 owed. Post Office management said that the post office managers must have pocketed the cash (a plausible assumption if Horizon is error free).
The subsequent human consequences is scandalous. Heads should roll.
Bringing 2 subthreads together, the allegation has to be that the cash they were pocketing, was cash. This whole scandal would not (I am guessing) have occurred in a no-cash economy.
You guess wrong. Fraud and miscarriages of justice and brainless reliance on technological systems will happen in all sorts of societies. See crypto for instance.
Not at all relevant. Crypto is all in cyberspace. The victims of the post office scandal were universally small time unsophisticated, disproportionately BAME, and it seems much the most probable allegation being made against them was that they were siphoning cash, as cash. Do you have any evidence to the contrary, or indeed any plausible suggestion as to what other allegation was being made? You sound very like some one who has a City-of-London shaped anti fraud hammer, trying to make small-scale micro businesses look like City-of-London nails.
You misunderstand me. Or I have not explained myself well.
The allegations against the postmasters will likely have been (I would need to check) that some of the allegedly missing money was siphoned off as cash.
What I don't know is, even if all the transactions were electronic, whether the malfunctioning Horizon software would still have shown up alleged discrepancies. Or indeed whether some of the allegations were that the money had been transferred electronically to the postmasters accounts.
My point was a different one - frauds and miscarriages of justice are not going to disappear in a cashless society and it is foolish to assume so.
Yes. I never said nothing would go wrong in a no cash economy, I said this particular thing wouldn't have gone wrong.
At Euston station this evening, one of the food places inside the station had a sign outside saying "cash only". Obviously their card machines had broken down.
That's fair enough. Cash shouldn't be criminalised. But I'm sure in this day and age that they did less business today.
Computer systems also break down, but we do not compel paper ledgers unless there is a critical need. The difference is that a cash network carries external benefits which are paid for by the businesses and banks, but it's becoming less viable to charge fees to cover the network. So the government should pay for it.
I am going to praise Andrew Bridgen and Laura Pidcock. Someone has to.
Why?
Andrew Bridgen made an allegation in the House of Commons yesterday on behalf of two of his constituents that by 2014 the Government (as well as the Post Office) had evidence that they had been wrongly convicted. Bear in mind that, if true, this was 5 years before the Bates case which blew the whole scandal wide open and led to the inquiry. Will the relevant Minister rebut this charge or let it lie? And if the latter, it raises some very serious questions about the government's handling of the compensation schemes since then. 9 years later Mr Bridgen's constituents still have received no compensation.
Laura Pidcock
In a Tweet she said this.
Something the Mayor of London, the Labour leader and the Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities have felt unable or unwilling to say.
It is obvious to ordinary common sense that a number of people must have known in their hearts that innocent people were being sent o prison as the PO scandal rolled on. Even if there was no other evidence the sudden plethora of 'people like us' suddenly being found dishonest by the same route must have rung bells.
BTW I am still puzzled about this, as in my family we have had old fashioned accountants with simple ways, and if 6d was missing you searched till it was sorted.
How is it possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone has stolen/fraudulently obtained money when as a matter of hard fact no-one has - there has been no fraud or theft and an old fashioned audit will be unable to show that actual money has actually disappeared.
How did this get past common sense, accountants, auditors, forensic investigators, prosecutors, defence lawyers, defence expert forensic accountants, judges and juries?
One of the reasons was because of a ruling made by one of the judges (and in line with a Law Commission recommendation) that computer evidence should be relied upon. In other words, the presumption was made that the Horizon software was working properly unless proved otherwise. This effectively reversed the burden of proof and made it pretty much impossible for subpostmasters to prove that the software was not working as it should be. It also shows up the wickedness of the Post Office because they knew that the software was not working and had bugs etc and lied to the defendants and the courts about this - repeatedly.
They failed to disclose to the defendants - in breach of all the rules - the information they had and that failure to disclose is happening to this day.
The stupidity of this assumption coupled with the wickedness of the Post Office is a large part of what caused this. Also very few of the defendants had the resources needed to pay for expert computer and accounting experts.
Thanks. I am a simple soul, so I still want to know: How can a proper audit show that in fact money has been misappropriated when it hasn't? Computers by making mistakes can show that money has appeared and disappeared when it hasn't. But a proper audit has to actually find the real stuff and the real transactions and make sure they add up.
Yes, that's got me too. Where did the 'missing' money go? Or did the issue relate to incorrect tallying of goods/services sold to make it look as if there should have been higher cash receipts?
@Benpointer. I think the books balanced in reality. However an error in the computer system said that there was £100 owed. Post Office management said that the post office managers must have pocketed the cash (a plausible assumption if Horizon is error free).
The subsequent human consequences is scandalous. Heads should roll.
Bringing 2 subthreads together, the allegation has to be that the cash they were pocketing, was cash. This whole scandal would not (I am guessing) have occurred in a no-cash economy.
You guess wrong. Fraud and miscarriages of justice and brainless reliance on technological systems will happen in all sorts of societies. See crypto for instance.
Not at all relevant. Crypto is all in cyberspace. The victims of the post office scandal were universally small time unsophisticated, disproportionately BAME, and it seems much the most probable allegation being made against them was that they were siphoning cash, as cash. Do you have any evidence to the contrary, or indeed any plausible suggestion as to what other allegation was being made? You sound very like some one who has a City-of-London shaped anti fraud hammer, trying to make small-scale micro businesses look like City-of-London nails.
You misunderstand me. Or I have not explained myself well.
The allegations against the postmasters will likely have been (I would need to check) that some of the allegedly missing money was siphoned off as cash.
What I don't know is, even if all the transactions were electronic, whether the malfunctioning Horizon software would still have shown up alleged discrepancies. Or indeed whether some of the allegations were that the money had been transferred electronically to the postmasters accounts.
My point was a different one - frauds and miscarriages of justice are not going to disappear in a cashless society and it is foolish to assume so.
Yes. I never said nothing would go wrong in a no cash economy, I said this particular thing wouldn't have gone wrong.
Possibly. I'm not certain about that. I would need to understand how the Horizon software accounted for electronic transactions - because some of them will likely have been electronic - and what exactly was going wrong. And what all the allegations against all those postmasters were. It's worth remembering that not all were prosecuted.
At any event, the whole thing is an utter disgrace. To bring in another sub-thread, the government is moving quickly to make banks explain why they are closing someone's account but moving glacially over this affair. Priorities eh!
What would Anabob do if a tradesman offered him money off a job for cash payment?
a) rush to the nearest cash machine b) just refuse c) refuse and explain to the tradesman the benefits of a cashless society
d) refuse and explain to the tradesman the benefits of living in a country where people pay their taxes.
Do people actually lecture other people offering cash discounts on this?
I can understand insisting on paying the higher price, to make sure one isn't enabling tax dodging, but lecturing - or reporting, as suggested earlier - someone for it seems tedious or harsh
If a taxi driver told me twelve quid with the card or ten quid cash and I had a tenner, I wouldn't have a tenner any more
I can't imagine being the person that would start talking about tax
I doubt @OnlyLivingBoy was being serious. Everyone would pay the taxi driver £10 in cash. It's a bit different with e.g. a building tradesman, though, because cash means no receipt, which means no comeback if you find out after paying him that he's done a crap job, at least not unless you fancy threatening to beat him up.
Another thing is that some places offer discounts for cards not cash. Moneylenders must love the decline of the cash economy, given that many in the population don't really understand the ramifications of using a credit card or the difference between a credit card and a debit card. Sometimes when paying with my debit card I've been asked by some young kid "Didn't the bank let you have a credit card?"
ThomasNashe asked: "Who’d have thought giving people cleaner air to breathe would be such a vote loser?"
Tobacco and marijuana smokers?
More seriously, there are legitimate questions about how far to go in cutting down on pollution, just as there are legitimate questions on how much to spend on, for example, making roads safer.
I have no opinion on the issues in London, but I don't see anything strange about people thinking the trade-offs aren't worth while.
(For the record: The US has made considerable strides in reducing air pollution, especially during the GHWB administration. I think the cap-and-trade measures introduced then were the right approach to many pollution problems.)
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
You really should stop believing the Coutts/BBC line - which has now been thoroughly demolished by Coutts' own documents - and start thinking about the knock on effects of banks being able to withdraw services because they don't like your - perfectly legal - politics.
Oh and Nat West only offered a replacement 4 days after the story had made the news since they were desperately seeking to avoid embarrasment.
Women’s football proven to be more exciting to watch than men’s ... ... women are less risk averse with their passing and shooting, which results in more goals being scored. On average, passes in matches at the women’s Euros moved teams forward by 3.7 metres, compared to just 2.5 metres in the men’s World Cup.
I’ve written to @Keir_Starmer to request he pays for the criminal damage the Just Stop Oil attacks on the Energy Security Department caused this morning
The letter is embedded in the tweet. Unless there are any by-elections imminent, this is probably a serious letter from Mr Shapps and not a political stunt.
I loathed Barbie as a child. Loathed dolls, come to think of it. A film of it sounds utterly ghastly.
I've assumed from them managing to nab an acclaimed director that the intention was to make a glorified marketing campaign at least relatively ambitious, which can work, particularly if you can then defend obvious marketing as being ironic or providing commentary in some way. I saw a content description about the film containing commentary about the patriarchy.
They've certainly done a great job at providing awareness that the film exists (you'd be surprised how many movies sneak up even on those who go to the cinema a lot), whether people will actually turn out will be very interesting.
It's quite an exciting film, apparently. Barbie trafficks arms to unsavoury African governments, and has a serious cocaine addiction.
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
But what a delight to see a pompous arse who will have have spent the last 42 years boasting that he banked with Coutts finding himself black balled because they found him to be an unpleasant racist with insufficient funds and therefore an extremely poor advert for their service.
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
But what a delight to see a pompous arse who will have have spent the last 42 years boasting that he banked with Coutts finding himself black balled because they found him to be an unpleasant racist with insufficient funds and therefore an extremely poor advert for their service.
What would Anabob do if a tradesman offered him money off a job for cash payment?
a) rush to the nearest cash machine b) just refuse c) refuse and explain to the tradesman the benefits of a cashless society
d) refuse and explain to the tradesman the benefits of living in a country where people pay their taxes.
Do people actually lecture other people offering cash discounts on this?
I can understand insisting on paying the higher price, to make sure one isn't enabling tax dodging, but lecturing - or reporting, as suggested earlier - someone for it seems tedious or harsh
If a taxi driver told me twelve quid with the card or ten quid cash and I had a tenner, I wouldn't have a tenner any more
I can't imagine being the person that would start talking about tax
I doubt @OnlyLivingBoy was being serious. Everyone would pay the taxi driver £10 in cash. It's a bit different with e.g. a building tradesman, though, because cash means no receipt, which means no comeback if you find out after paying him that he's done a crap job, at least not unless you fancy threatening to beat him up.
Another thing is that some places offer discounts for cards not cash. Moneylenders must love the decline of the cash economy, given that many in the population don't really understand the ramifications of using a credit card or the difference between a credit card and a debit card. Sometimes when paying with my debit card I've been asked by some young kid "Didn't the bank let you have a credit card?"
I'm absolutely serious. Not that I would lecture someone, but I would (and have) refused to pay tradesmen in cash. They've been fine with a bank transfer in the end but if they'd queried my thinking I would have told them my reasons. People should pay their taxes, it is how we fund our public services and live in a civilised society. Tax evasion isn't a joke.
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
But what a delight to see a pompous arse who will have have spent the last 42 years boasting that he banked with Coutts finding himself black balled because they found him to be an unpleasant racist with insufficient funds and therefore an extremely poor advert for their service.
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
It certainly shows that the EU has no respect for, or understanding of, democracy or sovereignty, or they wouldn't have agreed this statement. In fact, it shows it twice over, since not only do they show contempt for the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders, they show contempt for ours in voting to leave, according to their constitution.
Every time I start wondering whether leaving was worth it, something like this comes along and makes me remember how fundamentally nauseating and anti-democratic the EU is.
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
It certainly shows that the EU has no respect for, or understanding of, democracy or sovereignty, or they wouldn't have agreed this statement. In fact, it shows it twice over, since not only do they show contempt for the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders, they show contempt for ours in voting to leave, according to their constitution.
Every time I start wondering whether leaving was worth it, something like this comes along and makes me remember how fundamentally nauseating and anti-democratic the EU is.
Better off out.
You don't defend your interests by whining about it. You need to be in the room. In international relations if you're not at the lunch you are on the menu.
SNP fears Nicola Sturgeon and husband will be charged
Senior SNP figures are growing increasingly concerned that Nicola Sturgeon and her husband Peter Murrell may be charged as part of the police investigation into party finances.
Several leading nationalists have told The Times they believe a conclusion to the two-year inquiry is imminent. “It feels this is now coming to a head and that these investigations are likely to result in charges being brought,” one said.
Some opponents believe Sturgeon, the former first minister, and Murrell, the former SNP chief executive, may be charged as early as this weekend but Police Scotland have repeatedly refused to be drawn on a timescale for when inquiries may conclude.
Scotland’s chief constable said that the investigation has been expanded to look at allegations of “misuse of funds” and “potential embezzlement”.
Sir Iain Livingstone said that Operation Branchform had grown beyond the initial allegation of fraud.
I expect three quite heavy loses for Sunak and the conservative party today, with a quiet satisfaction from the Johnson/Truss supporters who hope to see him lose and be replaced with a right wing Farage/Trump supporting mp much in the vein of the London mayoral candidate
This is not my conservative party which is being hijacked by a group of RefUK supporters so they can change it into their image
It is apparent on here from several posters including @HYUFD that they want Sunak out, so they can celebrate a new right wing conservative party toasting the move to the right in Italy, Spain, France and Germany and may God forbid Trump in the US in 2024
There are many of us who are looking on in horror and despair that a relative small membership has the power to destroy the party. Maybe those of us who were former members should re-join in our thousands to attempt to prevent the end of the conservative party as we know it, but to be fair at my age I see little point
These right wing zealots are blind to the havoc Johnson and Truss have bestowed on the party and cannot accept the fact that public attitudes have changed away from their ill thought out and tribal attitudes, and as long as it persists will give Starmer and labour the keys to No 10 for as long as they wish
For me, and many others, we are politically homeless for the foreseeable future but as a compensation just now there is the Ashes and the Open to immerse ourselves in
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Let's have a new law saying businesses must accept cash.
Excessive. Every random café does not need to be doing runs to the local bank branch when neither party wants to handle cash. If it's too inefficient for the government to provide essential cash services directly, it should at least compensate those who bear the cost.
They were doing it 10 years ago, so they can do it now.
For starters, there are fewer branches than there were ten years ago.
That is a very large increase for the LibDems and no corresponding drop for any other party. So maybe a move from undecided based on the Tory choice of a very right wing candidate? Is the timing right for that to be a factor?
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
Hmmm, the actual story seems much less significant than the clickbait headline.
'The declaration, endorsed by 32 of the 33 Celac countries, with Nicaragua refusing because of language on the Ukraine conflict, states: “Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas/Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of Celac’s historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.”'
And
' Peter Stano, a spokesperson for the European External Action Service – the EU’s diplomatic service – said: “The EU member states have not changed their views/positions concerning the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. The EU is not in a situation to express any position on the Falklands/Malvinas, as there has not been any council [of member states] discussion or decision on this matter.” '
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Let's have a new law saying businesses must accept cash.
Even car dealerships, what about the Mercedes dealerships that sell vehicles above £100,000?
There’s that urban legend about a London gangster buying a Rolls for cash at 4pm on a Friday, back when the banks shut earlier than that.
And sending his guys round to steal the cash back on the Saturday.
You hear the same about diamond/jewellery shops.
I think France has a rule that businesses must accept cash, but there is also a limit of 1000 euros for cash purchases from businesses. Can anyone confirm?
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
Hmmm, the actual story seems much less significant than the clickbait headline.
'The declaration, endorsed by 32 of the 33 Celac countries, with Nicaragua refusing because of language on the Ukraine conflict, states: “Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas/Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of Celac’s historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.”'
And
' Peter Stano, a spokesperson for the European External Action Service – the EU’s diplomatic service – said: “The EU member states have not changed their views/positions concerning the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. The EU is not in a situation to express any position on the Falklands/Malvinas, as there has not been any council [of member states] discussion or decision on this matter.” '
Indeed, it is a very minor diplomatic victory for Argentina, but it is one that wouldn't have happened before 2016.
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
Hmmm, the actual story seems much less significant than the clickbait headline.
'The declaration, endorsed by 32 of the 33 Celac countries, with Nicaragua refusing because of language on the Ukraine conflict, states: “Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas/Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of Celac’s historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.”'
And
' Peter Stano, a spokesperson for the European External Action Service – the EU’s diplomatic service – said: “The EU member states have not changed their views/positions concerning the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. The EU is not in a situation to express any position on the Falklands/Malvinas, as there has not been any council [of member states] discussion or decision on this matter.” '
Indeed, it is a very minor diplomatic victory for Argentina, but it is one that wouldn't have happened before 2016.
Britain itself offered to put 'Islas Malvinas' in UNSC Resolution 502 (admittedly as a delaying tactic while Jordan considered its vote).
Unless it had actually supported the Argentine claim, or even only used 'IM', I think this is a non-story.
I loathed Barbie as a child. Loathed dolls, come to think of it. A film of it sounds utterly ghastly.
I've assumed from them managing to nab an acclaimed director that the intention was to make a glorified marketing campaign at least relatively ambitious, which can work, particularly if you can then defend obvious marketing as being ironic or providing commentary in some way. I saw a content description about the film containing commentary about the patriarchy.
They've certainly done a great job at providing awareness that the film exists (you'd be surprised how many movies sneak up even on those who go to the cinema a lot), whether people will actually turn out will be very interesting.
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
If you read the Coutts dossier it’s clear it has nothing to do with PEP or AML issues. They say that Farage had already been downgraded to being a low-risk PEP and would no longer be considered a PEP at all soon.
However, Coutts are a bank that, by definition, don't just accept everyone's business.
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
It certainly shows that the EU has no respect for, or understanding of, democracy or sovereignty, or they wouldn't have agreed this statement. In fact, it shows it twice over, since not only do they show contempt for the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders, they show contempt for ours in voting to leave, according to their constitution.
Every time I start wondering whether leaving was worth it, something like this comes along and makes me remember how fundamentally nauseating and anti-democratic the EU is.
Better off out.
Actually all the EU said, Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands - nothing to do with us. UK government maybe wasn't wise in making this into an issue:
Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of CELAC's historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
It certainly shows that the EU has no respect for, or understanding of, democracy or sovereignty, or they wouldn't have agreed this statement. In fact, it shows it twice over, since not only do they show contempt for the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders, they show contempt for ours in voting to leave, according to their constitution.
Every time I start wondering whether leaving was worth it, something like this comes along and makes me remember how fundamentally nauseating and anti-democratic the EU is.
Better off out.
Not sure what the drama is about . More faux outrage from Leavers !
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
It certainly shows that the EU has no respect for, or understanding of, democracy or sovereignty, or they wouldn't have agreed this statement. In fact, it shows it twice over, since not only do they show contempt for the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders, they show contempt for ours in voting to leave, according to their constitution.
Every time I start wondering whether leaving was worth it, something like this comes along and makes me remember how fundamentally nauseating and anti-democratic the EU is.
Better off out.
Not sure what the drama is about . More faux outrage from Leavers !
Fuck you, we're leaving! By the way, please don't use a term for a sheep shit covered cluster of rocks at 51 deg south that spikes the systolic pressure of Telegraph subscribers.
Comments
The subsequent human consequences is scandalous. Heads should roll.
It's interesting how Scotland's population has fallen relative to England's over the last couple of centuries though. England - and especially London - just has more economic opportunities. I won't be the last Scots-born person to migrate south. Geography matters and Scotland is further from the action than England is - perhaps why the Scots understood better the folly of Brexit.
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
Why do your personal preferences have to be made into points of principle?
Kiefer Sutherland seems to be getting around, I am seeing him - probably not for the whole set - in the Highlands next w/e.
a) rush to the nearest cash machine
b) just refuse
c) refuse and explain to the tradesman the benefits of a cashless society
Looks like it will be a muddy one.
Why should businesses be forced to cater to your preferences?
And the weird dolls which 'grew' hair that you were supposed to brush, or dolls that cried for arbitrary reasons, or (as I remember) 'drank milk'. All the greats of earlier times.
There are so many ways to f**k around with children's minds. And make their parents pay for it. Praise be.
After a while I was about to pluck up the courage to talk to someone 'proper' about it when a monk tapped me on the shoulder and said "We're a bit worried about your friend. She seems to be spending an awful lot of time in here and missing out on all the fun. Could you help us get her out of the tent?"
(Farage; fascist in a tree)
https://twitter.com/brucel/status/1373992739319189504?lang=en-GB
I can understand insisting on paying the higher price, to make sure one isn't enabling tax dodging, but lecturing - or reporting, as suggested earlier - someone for it seems tedious or harsh
If a taxi driver told me twelve quid with the card or ten quid cash and I had a tenner, I wouldn't have a tenner any more
I can't imagine being the person that would start talking about tax
The allegations against the postmasters will likely have been (I would need to check) that some of the allegedly missing money was siphoned off as cash.
What I don't know is, even if all the transactions were electronic, whether the malfunctioning Horizon software would still have shown up alleged discrepancies. Or indeed whether some of the allegations were that the money had been transferred electronically to the postmasters accounts.
My point was a different one - frauds and miscarriages of justice are not going to disappear in a cashless society and it is foolish to assume so.
Was reading one about an effort by Trump's lawyers to bring the Manhattan cases into Federal Court, which hinges on some rather dry technical legal tests, but does throw up some amusing lines
(or would be amusing, but that legal stonewalling like this presumably makes bringing things to trial prior to his confirmation as nominee that much harder)
Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President's official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the President's official duties...
Trump's argument is conclusory. No evidence was presented to support it, and Trump has not explained how hiring and making payments to a personal attorney to handle personal affairs carries out a constitutional duty. Reimbursing Cohen for advancing hush money to Stephanie Clifford cannot be considered the performance of a constitutional duty. Falsifying business records to hide such reimbursement, and to transform the reimbursement into a business expense for Trump and income to Cohen, likewise does not relate to a presidential duty
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.43.0_1.pdf
At any event, the whole thing is an utter disgrace. To bring in another sub-thread, the government is moving quickly to make banks explain why they are closing someone's account but moving glacially over this affair. Priorities eh!
Another thing is that some places offer discounts for cards not cash. Moneylenders must love the decline of the cash economy, given that many in the population don't really understand the ramifications of using a credit card or the difference between a credit card and a debit card. Sometimes when paying with my debit card I've been asked by some young kid "Didn't the bank let you have a credit card?"
Tobacco and marijuana smokers?
More seriously, there are legitimate questions about how far to go in cutting down on pollution, just as there are legitimate questions on how much to spend on, for example, making roads safer.
I have no opinion on the issues in London, but I don't see anything strange about people thinking the trade-offs aren't worth while.
(For the record: The US has made considerable strides in reducing air pollution, especially during the GHWB administration. I think the cap-and-trade measures introduced then were the right approach to many pollution problems.)
Oh and Nat West only offered a replacement 4 days after the story had made the news since they were desperately seeking to avoid embarrasment.
...
... women are less risk averse with their passing and shooting, which results in more goals being scored. On average, passes in matches at the women’s Euros moved teams forward by 3.7 metres, compared to just 2.5 metres in the men’s World Cup.
Using an expected pass model, the average pass in a men’s match had a risk factor of 21 per cent, whereas the average pass in a women’s match had a 23 per cent risk factor. Women’s matches also had a greater thrill factor as they were 30 per cent less likely to end in a draw.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/football/women-s-football-proven-to-be-more-exciting-to-watch-than-men-s/ar-AA1e5sct
That might be useful for betting purposes, unless your bookmaker reads the papers.
As the political wing of Just Stop Oil, it is the Labour Party not the taxpayer that should be paying the bill
https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1681756923589283842
The letter is embedded in the tweet. Unless there are any by-elections imminent, this is probably a serious letter from Mr Shapps and not a political stunt.
Taliban chief spokesman praised the 'positive' report from the Commons Defence Committee chairman
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/19/tobias-ellwood-deletes-video-praising-the-taliban/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-signs-deal-calling-falklands-the-malvinas-99pxjfhgf (£££)
The EU text uses both names: Islas Malvinas and the Falkland Islands.
Another Brexit dividend.
Every time I start wondering whether leaving was worth it, something like this comes along and makes me remember how fundamentally nauseating and anti-democratic the EU is.
Better off out.
Senior SNP figures are growing increasingly concerned that Nicola Sturgeon and her husband Peter Murrell may be charged as part of the police investigation into party finances.
Several leading nationalists have told The Times they believe a conclusion to the two-year inquiry is imminent. “It feels this is now coming to a head and that these investigations are likely to result in charges being brought,” one said.
Some opponents believe Sturgeon, the former first minister, and Murrell, the former SNP chief executive, may be charged as early as this weekend but Police Scotland have repeatedly refused to be drawn on a timescale for when inquiries may conclude.
Scotland’s chief constable said that the investigation has been expanded to look at allegations of “misuse of funds” and “potential embezzlement”.
Sir Iain Livingstone said that Operation Branchform had grown beyond the initial allegation of fraud.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-police-inquiry-widens-after-potential-embezzlement-claims-dgtn07skz
I expect three quite heavy loses for Sunak and the conservative party today, with a quiet satisfaction from the Johnson/Truss supporters who hope to see him lose and be replaced with a right wing Farage/Trump supporting mp much in the vein of the London mayoral candidate
This is not my conservative party which is being hijacked by a group of RefUK supporters so they can change it into their image
It is apparent on here from several posters including @HYUFD that they want Sunak out, so they can celebrate a new right wing conservative party toasting the move to the right in Italy, Spain, France and Germany and may God forbid Trump in the US in 2024
There are many of us who are looking on in horror and despair that a relative small membership has the power to destroy the party. Maybe those of us who were former members should re-join in our thousands to attempt to prevent the end of the conservative party as we know it, but to be fair at my age I see little point
These right wing zealots are blind to the havoc Johnson and Truss have bestowed on the party and cannot accept the fact that public attitudes have changed away from their ill thought out and tribal attitudes, and as long as it persists will give Starmer and labour the keys to No 10 for as long as they wish
For me, and many others, we are politically homeless for the foreseeable future but as a compensation just now there is the Ashes and the Open to immerse ourselves in
'The declaration, endorsed by 32 of the 33 Celac countries, with Nicaragua refusing because of language on the Ukraine conflict, states: “Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas/Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of Celac’s historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.”'
And
' Peter Stano, a spokesperson for the European External Action Service – the EU’s diplomatic service – said: “The EU member states have not changed their views/positions concerning the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. The EU is not in a situation to express any position on the Falklands/Malvinas, as there has not been any council [of member states] discussion or decision on this matter.” '
And sending his guys round to steal the cash back on the Saturday.
Although it does mean every non-Labour FM of Scotland will have been charged with a crime.
Which is not necessarily what you would have expected.
The dealerships, that is.
It's called Ynys Môn, thank you very much.
Unless it had actually supported the Argentine claim, or even only used 'IM', I think this is a non-story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbenheimer
Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of CELAC's historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.
https://twitter.com/tuckwell_steve/status/1681910017115447297
Fuck you, we're leaving! By the way, please don't use a term for a sheep shit covered cluster of rocks at 51 deg south that spikes the systolic pressure of Telegraph subscribers.