This is in top tier of scandals involving the justice system in the history of the UK
It is, and Ms Cyclefree makes a couple of points of importance that I had not previously appreciated.
The Inquiry will not be looking at the role of the Law Commission, or Government. Since these are two of the biggest contributors to the scandal, the final report is bound to be a bit lopsided.
The other elephant in the room not mentioned in this thread piece, though she does so elsewhere, is the formidable amount of time it is taking to work through the evidence. This is partly due to the Post Office's deliberate attempts to slow the machinery down. The Government, which owns the PO, could do something about this, so we can safely assume it is happy to have the Inquiry wade slowly through treacle.
A point about electronic evidence as discussed in the thread header, for which many thanks to Cyclefree - I remember reading a book some years ago by a forensic computer scientist who had a very poor view of some of the cases he had examined for the defence. IIRC, one was that the prosecution hadn't checked if the system clock was set right (it wasn't, so the evidence being tied in with other sources was completely out of kilter, with obvious problems for such things as alibis). Another was that the prosecution had not noticed that the sysadmin had poked around in the files etc. (out of c uriosity maybe rather than malice?) so the evidence was completely corrupted in thje legal sense. My clear sense was even then to go straight to a solicitor and ensure such a person is called in ab initio if I am ever accused of any such thing.
Okay, so the author would want to show off his triumphs, and I didn't verify them, but after seeing what the PO have perpetrated ... more generally, I can't believe there haven't been miscarriages of justice already.
The deeper difficulty is not the bare problem. This is obvious and always has been ever since someone tried to defend a case against a speed camera - O happy simple days.
Everything beyond face to face conversation and paper with handwriting on it goes through systems, of potentially infinite complexity, which no individual fully understands. If a prosecutor has to prove, every time, and in reliable scientific terms that what came out from a device was what went in at the other end, or that a till receipt for 47p in fact reflects the reality of the transaction the entire criminal law edifice would collapse.
That though comes down to reasonable doubt sorry. Most people faced by wrong computer facts are in no position to prove it. I say this as a software engineer....hell I would have trouble proving it against a system I didn't know and that is before I ask to look at the software to identify possible issues and get told no its a secret and we cant let you look at it.
If you wish to stack it against people where its there word against the computers then arguing the burden is too much for the prosecution of actually proving what they allege happened because a computer says it did then thats the way to do it
Horizon produced no audit trail. Without that, you may as well be relying on the word of God.
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
There is a single state from the river to the sea, no?
There is, just not the correct one from some perspectives.
Here’s one for the PB brains, is there any other country that is defined by a border between a river and the sea? I’m guessing a South American country is most likely but maybe a small west African country could have had its border set that way.
Vietnam: Mekong River and the South China Sea?
Edit to add: nope, that doesn't work, because the Mekong cuts through Cambodia.
Had a call on my way home from Barclays. Suspicious payment. Have I made a payment of £629 to a Mr. Ahmed from Bradford with the reference 'rent'? No, I haven't. The payment was made on telephone banking - do you know how your details could have been compromised? Any suspicious emails you've clicked on? Do you have your card in your possession? I'm actually on a tram right now, could you call me again in 20 minutes? Sure, I'll book you in for a call at 5.30.
In the meamtime, I google the number I've been phoned from - Barclays fraud prevention. Fine.
5.30 comes and they call me back - can you confirm your card number? Have you got the app? No, I don't use banking apps. Ok, have you got your pinsentry reader?
Haven't come across this approach before, but lets go with it. OK, I've got my pinsentry reader. Ok, can you put your card in and press 'respond' and enter your pin? Ok... ...and read out the 8 digit number?
At this point - although I've checked this is Barclays ringing me - every single klaxon in my brain is screaming at me. Politely explain that I'm going to have to resolve this another way as this is exactly the information a scammer would need to get into my account. Barclays say that's fine, but I will need to make a face to face appointment in a branch and bring some photo id.
Hang up and phone Barclays phone banking. This is a bit of a palaver since I don't use phone banking and have no idea what my phone banking id is. But not as much of a palaver as you might expect.
Explain to the nice lady on the phone what had happened. "Good grief, no, we would never do that."
COOKIE YOU BLOODY IDIOT. Of course it wasn't Barclays, as your subconscious was screaming at you from the start. Turns out it's possible to make it look like you're phoning from a completely different number. I didn't know that.
The conversation had felt 'wrong' all the way through - but I put that down to the poor quality of the phone line (which itself should have been a red flag) and the natural panic about someone having my banking details. I had even thought about asking here if anyone had had a similar phone call while I was on my way home before they called me back, then thought "don't be so bloody lazy" and googled it. I even challenged him, and he - rather than tell me anything only Barclays would know, like recent transactions, told me to google the phone number. And there were probably a dozen other little clues too which the subconscious picked up but the conscious didn't - just slightly the wrong way through the conversation, just slightly too desperate a manner as he was getting close.
He was, however, very plausible.
Anyway, no money missing from account and card cancelled. So all probably fine; just feeling a bloody idiot.
You’re not an idiot. They do this every day, day in day out & have honed scripts that work & have practiced emotionally manipulating the person on the other end of the line over & over.
Whereas for you, it’s (very likely) the first time this has happened.
Well done for keeping your wits about you & not getting sucked into their scheme.
I was trying to buy something for < £100 quid via our finance office this week. Had an email from them saying "Sure - can you just email me your password?".
It really amazes me how bad this all is.
I need to do a Teams call with them at the best of times where they 'take control' of my browser and type in the oh-so-secure creadit-card details in front of my face. Because.... them's the rules. Or something.
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
There is a single state from the river to the sea, no?
There is, just not the correct one from some perspectives.
Here’s one for the PB brains, is there any other country that is defined by a border between a river and the sea? I’m guessing a South American country is most likely but maybe a small west African country could have had its border set that way.
Vietnam: Mekong River and the South China Sea?
Edit to add: nope, that doesn't work, because the Mekong cuts through Cambodia.
I would have thought so but it seems not. The border between Haití and Dominican Republic seems to be mostly river I’ve discovered whilst trying not to be lazy and asking PB.
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
There is a single state from the river to the sea, no?
There is, just not the correct one from some perspectives.
Here’s one for the PB brains, is there any other country that is defined by a border between a river and the sea? I’m guessing a South American country is most likely but maybe a small west African country could have had its border set that way.
Vietnam: Mekong River and the South China Sea?
Edit to add: nope, that doesn't work, because the Mekong cuts through Cambodia.
Geographically it doesn’t work anyway because if the river and the sea forms the whole border then it’s not a river it’s a channel like the Bosphorus.
Denmark between the kiel canal and the sea? Gambia…just a river going to the sea. The answer is I don’t think there’s another such example.
Had a call on my way home from Barclays. Suspicious payment. Have I made a payment of £629 to a Mr. Ahmed from Bradford with the reference 'rent'? No, I haven't. The payment was made on telephone banking - do you know how your details could have been compromised? Any suspicious emails you've clicked on? Do you have your card in your possession? I'm actually on a tram right now, could you call me again in 20 minutes? Sure, I'll book you in for a call at 5.30.
In the meamtime, I google the number I've been phoned from - Barclays fraud prevention. Fine.
5.30 comes and they call me back - can you confirm your card number? Have you got the app? No, I don't use banking apps. Ok, have you got your pinsentry reader?
Haven't come across this approach before, but lets go with it. OK, I've got my pinsentry reader. Ok, can you put your card in and press 'respond' and enter your pin? Ok... ...and read out the 8 digit number?
At this point - although I've checked this is Barclays ringing me - every single klaxon in my brain is screaming at me. Politely explain that I'm going to have to resolve this another way as this is exactly the information a scammer would need to get into my account. Barclays say that's fine, but I will need to make a face to face appointment in a branch and bring some photo id.
Hang up and phone Barclays phone banking. This is a bit of a palaver since I don't use phone banking and have no idea what my phone banking id is. But not as much of a palaver as you might expect.
Explain to the nice lady on the phone what had happened. "Good grief, no, we would never do that."
COOKIE YOU BLOODY IDIOT. Of course it wasn't Barclays, as your subconscious was screaming at you from the start. Turns out it's possible to make it look like you're phoning from a completely different number. I didn't know that.
The conversation had felt 'wrong' all the way through - but I put that down to the poor quality of the phone line (which itself should have been a red flag) and the natural panic about someone having my banking details. I had even thought about asking here if anyone had had a similar phone call while I was on my way home before they called me back, then thought "don't be so bloody lazy" and googled it. I even challenged him, and he - rather than tell me anything only Barclays would know, like recent transactions, told me to google the phone number. And there were probably a dozen other little clues too which the subconscious picked up but the conscious didn't - just slightly the wrong way through the conversation, just slightly too desperate a manner as he was getting close.
He was, however, very plausible.
Anyway, no money missing from account and card cancelled. So all probably fine; just feeling a bloody idiot.
It's call 'spoofing' and it is bloody nightmare for this kind of thing.
You need (we all need) to watch for "delayed disconnect" on landlines.
What is delayed disconnect?
The spam party asks you to hang up and dial another number.
Unless you put your phone down and then wait a certain time*, when you pick up to dial the other number it will still actually be connected to the original guy who will just hear some beeps and then say 'hi, my name is Janet and I am an expert in resolving banking issues - now just pass me your PIN code and we can sort this' etc
* iirc it was ten minutes ie a fucking long time but may now be two. I can't recall?
The last scam banking call I had was quite disappointing. I could quite clearly hear the background of the cafe the dude was in. "Do you want milk in that, dear?". And my innocent "Your number is listed as a banking scam" question was met with a "Well, it's f*cking wrong then, mate!".
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
There is a single state from the river to the sea, no?
There is, just not the correct one from some perspectives.
Here’s one for the PB brains, is there any other country that is defined by a border between a river and the sea? I’m guessing a South American country is most likely but maybe a small west African country could have had its border set that way.
Vietnam: Mekong River and the South China Sea?
Edit to add: nope, that doesn't work, because the Mekong cuts through Cambodia.
Geographically it doesn’t work anyway because if the river and the sea forms the whole border then it’s not a river it’s a channel like the Bosphorus.
Denmark between the kiel canal and the sea? Gambia…just a river going to the sea. The answer is I don’t think there’s another such example.
The Rio Guadiana forms a long section of the Portuguese border with Spain, its other border being the Atlantic. But by no means all of it.
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
There is a single state from the river to the sea, no?
There is, just not the correct one from some perspectives.
Here’s one for the PB brains, is there any other country that is defined by a border between a river and the sea? I’m guessing a South American country is most likely but maybe a small west African country could have had its border set that way.
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
There is a single state from the river to the sea, no?
There is, just not the correct one from some perspectives.
Here’s one for the PB brains, is there any other country that is defined by a border between a river and the sea? I’m guessing a South American country is most likely but maybe a small west African country could have had its border set that way.
Vietnam: Mekong River and the South China Sea?
Edit to add: nope, that doesn't work, because the Mekong cuts through Cambodia.
Geographically it doesn’t work anyway because if the river and the sea forms the whole border then it’s not a river it’s a channel like the Bosphorus.
Denmark between the kiel canal and the sea? Gambia…just a river going to the sea. The answer is I don’t think there’s another such example.
The Rio Guadiana forms a long section of the Portuguese border with Spain, its other border being the Atlantic. But by no means all of it.
Funny you should say that, I did originally write it but decided it doesn’t go far North enough to count.
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
There is a single state from the river to the sea, no?
There is, just not the correct one from some perspectives.
Here’s one for the PB brains, is there any other country that is defined by a border between a river and the sea? I’m guessing a South American country is most likely but maybe a small west African country could have had its border set that way.
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
There is a single state from the river to the sea, no?
There is, just not the correct one from some perspectives.
Here’s one for the PB brains, is there any other country that is defined by a border between a river and the sea? I’m guessing a South American country is most likely but maybe a small west African country could have had its border set that way.
Uruguay
An independent Cornwall. From the Tamar to the Sea.
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Standard MO for any public service when asked to find savings - go straight for something they notice, and then parade your bleeding stumps publicly so nobody asks you to find any more savings ever again.
Had a call on my way home from Barclays. Suspicious payment. Have I made a payment of £629 to a Mr. Ahmed from Bradford with the reference 'rent'? No, I haven't. The payment was made on telephone banking - do you know how your details could have been compromised? Any suspicious emails you've clicked on? Do you have your card in your possession? I'm actually on a tram right now, could you call me again in 20 minutes? Sure, I'll book you in for a call at 5.30.
In the meamtime, I google the number I've been phoned from - Barclays fraud prevention. Fine.
5.30 comes and they call me back - can you confirm your card number? Have you got the app? No, I don't use banking apps. Ok, have you got your pinsentry reader?
Haven't come across this approach before, but lets go with it. OK, I've got my pinsentry reader. Ok, can you put your card in and press 'respond' and enter your pin? Ok... ...and read out the 8 digit number?
At this point - although I've checked this is Barclays ringing me - every single klaxon in my brain is screaming at me. Politely explain that I'm going to have to resolve this another way as this is exactly the information a scammer would need to get into my account. Barclays say that's fine, but I will need to make a face to face appointment in a branch and bring some photo id.
Hang up and phone Barclays phone banking. This is a bit of a palaver since I don't use phone banking and have no idea what my phone banking id is. But not as much of a palaver as you might expect.
Explain to the nice lady on the phone what had happened. "Good grief, no, we would never do that."
COOKIE YOU BLOODY IDIOT. Of course it wasn't Barclays, as your subconscious was screaming at you from the start. Turns out it's possible to make it look like you're phoning from a completely different number. I didn't know that.
The conversation had felt 'wrong' all the way through - but I put that down to the poor quality of the phone line (which itself should have been a red flag) and the natural panic about someone having my banking details. I had even thought about asking here if anyone had had a similar phone call while I was on my way home before they called me back, then thought "don't be so bloody lazy" and googled it. I even challenged him, and he - rather than tell me anything only Barclays would know, like recent transactions, told me to google the phone number. And there were probably a dozen other little clues too which the subconscious picked up but the conscious didn't - just slightly the wrong way through the conversation, just slightly too desperate a manner as he was getting close.
He was, however, very plausible.
Anyway, no money missing from account and card cancelled. So all probably fine; just feeling a bloody idiot.
It's call 'spoofing' and it is bloody nightmare for this kind of thing.
You need (we all need) to watch for "delayed disconnect" on landlines.
What is delayed disconnect?
The spam party asks you to hang up and dial another number.
Unless you put your phone down and then wait a certain time*, when you pick up to dial the other number it will still actually be connected to the original guy who will just hear some beeps and then say 'hi, my name is Janet and I am an expert in resolving banking issues - now just pass me your PIN code and we can sort this' etc
* iirc it was ten minutes ie a fucking long time but may now be two. I can't recall?
The last scam banking call I had was quite disappointing. I could quite clearly hear the background of the cafe the dude was in. "Do you want milk in that, dear?". And my innocent "Your number is listed as a banking scam" question was met with a "Well, it's f*cking wrong then, mate!".
2/10 - try harder.
I only ever get scam calls asking me to upgrade my phone.
Last three -
First one asked me what phone I was using. I replied, Nokia 3310, best phone in the world! He hung up.
Next one asked me if I'd like the latest Samsung phone, 50% off, to which I replied "no, I'd much rather have the whole phone. Which part is missing, the top half or the bottom half?". He hung up.
Most recent one asked me if "my contract with EE had recently expired" to which I replied "what are you wearing?" I actually got a "what was that?!??" off the shocked scammer, to which I replied "what, do you have a problem with complete strangers asking you personal questions down the phone?" He hung up...
Thank you for this article. The problem here is so obvious that it is easy to overlook the subsequent difficulty: How should the criminal law be framed, and how shall its consequences be funded.
The problem arises with any action, communication etc relying on a system outside of the one communicating and the recipient - which in the modern world is more or less everything apart from personal conversation and paper with writing on it (what are they? a young person might ask).
Let us say that a minor criminal case depends upon: An email, a text message and the absence of any record of a transaction in a branch of Sainsbury's on the Saturday before Christmas (his alibi).
The prosecutor is to prove all this. The defendant remains mostly mute, denies everything, asserts the email and text message never existed and that the absence of record of a particular transaction in Sainsbury's is due to computer unreliability.
The task of proving every stage of these everyday matters would be burdensome in a murder case let alone some minor matter.
So what is to be done, Cyclefree, when reliance of systems no individual understands in universal, and how shall the law be framed?
To answer your and @kinabalu, Alex Chalk, when a junior justice minister, asked back in 2020 for IT and legal experts to come up with suggestions for how to deal with computer evidence. The resulting suggestions can be read here - https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5240.
The government said it would consider these. But then - as you will read in my next header - changed its mind. The lazy bastards won't even do the work to try and find a sensible answer to your very valid questions.
For the lawyers among you it explores further the nonsensical way the Law Commission approached its job.
Nick Wallis has written an excellent book on this scandal.
But there is a book to be written - and I rather think I am going to try and do it - on the common factors in all these scandals. Because that is what I keep seeing and it is what keeps being missed. Each scandal comes along with its own story and set of incompetents and villains and crushed by misery victims and inevitable report. It feels like one damn thing after another.
But there is very little joining of the dots, noticing the common patterns and the common ways in which remedies might be applied. There is very little learning and not enough going back to unpick the fundamental structures and attitudes which lead to these problems and their constant repetition. Which is what I think I am trying to do in my articles on this and similar instances.
I started doing this in my job because I kept seeing the same behaviours over and over again. And it is what I do in my work now. But I think there is scope for trying to draw some of this together in a way which illuminates. Let's face it - no-one is going to read the endless inquiry reports and because there are so many of them it is easy to feel overwhelmed. But if you could synthesise them in an attractive, compelling and thought-provoking way......
"A Handbook of British Cock-Ups" is my current working title.
Hmm! I'm actually reminded about books I have read about aircraft crashes and the maintenance of safety. Mind, the plane folk do tend to be better at learning lessons, like the copilot not being frightened to query something the pilot is doing if it seems wrong. Their crashes are rather more visible, I suppose.
The Railways set a good example in this respect. Study the cause of the crash, and learn from it.
The PO is still in denial. The Government too, I suspect.
Many years ago I 100% did not work for the Post Office. And they 100% didn't give a temporary promotion to a postmistress as a nice treat/PR-piece because she'd done a fancy xmas display in her office.
And 100% despite her writing to them every year kept the promotion current and so 100% did not over-pay her and over-contribute to her pension.
And 100% did not then try to sue her for fraud when they twigged years and years later.
Because they are 100% competent.
Edit: Just to be clear - they also did not 100% build a massive expensive sorting depot back to front which they 100% didn't deny then cause 100% increases in parcel delivery delays due to all the machinery being back to front relative to the loading bays. In case you were wondering.
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Standard MO for any public service when asked to find savings - go straight for something they notice, and then parade your bleeding stumps publicly so nobody asks you to find any more savings ever again.
The thing is Newsnight has piss poor viewership these days. It really isn't the essential viewing it was 20 years ago when Paxman was Paxo'ing lying politicians every night. High profile politicians don't even feel the need to go on there anymore as it doesn't set the agenda in the way it used to.
Obviously the BBC could easily save £40-50 million by again cutting the shit show that is BBC Three from being over the air that has Talk TV levels of live viewership. Absolutely no need for it. If they want to fund edgy untested show for da yuff, just stick it on iPlayer.
And of course most of the public have no idea about how BBC Studios / Worldwide operates and that BBC owns UKTV, which in bring loads of revenue on top of licence fee (and have ads).
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
But what happens next is usually unknowable. It certainly was in this case. And no, I spent no time living under apartheid. My best mate in the mid 80s did though. He was white but found it intolerable and fled.
A lot of it was knowable. People said that what has happened would happen and nobody wanted to listen to them, or report on the warnings because it wasn’t something that fitted the accepted worldview in polite media company.
If you had been a white person, especially a South African white person, warning that there would be this outcome, as many did warn including many many people I knew, you were dismissed as misguided, closed minded or racist.
Just because somebody predicts something that comes true doesn't mean they should have been listened to. That doesn't follow at all.
Had a call on my way home from Barclays. Suspicious payment. Have I made a payment of £629 to a Mr. Ahmed from Bradford with the reference 'rent'? No, I haven't. The payment was made on telephone banking - do you know how your details could have been compromised? Any suspicious emails you've clicked on? Do you have your card in your possession? I'm actually on a tram right now, could you call me again in 20 minutes? Sure, I'll book you in for a call at 5.30.
In the meamtime, I google the number I've been phoned from - Barclays fraud prevention. Fine.
5.30 comes and they call me back - can you confirm your card number? Have you got the app? No, I don't use banking apps. Ok, have you got your pinsentry reader?
Haven't come across this approach before, but lets go with it. OK, I've got my pinsentry reader. Ok, can you put your card in and press 'respond' and enter your pin? Ok... ...and read out the 8 digit number?
At this point - although I've checked this is Barclays ringing me - every single klaxon in my brain is screaming at me. Politely explain that I'm going to have to resolve this another way as this is exactly the information a scammer would need to get into my account. Barclays say that's fine, but I will need to make a face to face appointment in a branch and bring some photo id.
Hang up and phone Barclays phone banking. This is a bit of a palaver since I don't use phone banking and have no idea what my phone banking id is. But not as much of a palaver as you might expect.
Explain to the nice lady on the phone what had happened. "Good grief, no, we would never do that."
COOKIE YOU BLOODY IDIOT. Of course it wasn't Barclays, as your subconscious was screaming at you from the start. Turns out it's possible to make it look like you're phoning from a completely different number. I didn't know that.
The conversation had felt 'wrong' all the way through - but I put that down to the poor quality of the phone line (which itself should have been a red flag) and the natural panic about someone having my banking details. I had even thought about asking here if anyone had had a similar phone call while I was on my way home before they called me back, then thought "don't be so bloody lazy" and googled it. I even challenged him, and he - rather than tell me anything only Barclays would know, like recent transactions, told me to google the phone number. And there were probably a dozen other little clues too which the subconscious picked up but the conscious didn't - just slightly the wrong way through the conversation, just slightly too desperate a manner as he was getting close.
He was, however, very plausible.
Anyway, no money missing from account and card cancelled. So all probably fine; just feeling a bloody idiot.
It's call 'spoofing' and it is bloody nightmare for this kind of thing.
You need (we all need) to watch for "delayed disconnect" on landlines.
What is delayed disconnect?
The spam party asks you to hang up and dial another number.
Unless you put your phone down and then wait a certain time*, when you pick up to dial the other number it will still actually be connected to the original guy who will just hear some beeps and then say 'hi, my name is Janet and I am an expert in resolving banking issues - now just pass me your PIN code and we can sort this' etc
* iirc it was ten minutes ie a fucking long time but may now be two. I can't recall?
The last scam banking call I had was quite disappointing. I could quite clearly hear the background of the cafe the dude was in. "Do you want milk in that, dear?". And my innocent "Your number is listed as a banking scam" question was met with a "Well, it's f*cking wrong then, mate!".
2/10 - try harder.
I’ve had a couple of scam texts lately reading “Mum, I’ve smashed my phone, can you call me on this number”. I’m not really the target audience.
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
But what happens next is usually unknowable. It certainly was in this case. And no, I spent no time living under apartheid. My best mate in the mid 80s did though. He was white but found it intolerable and fled.
A lot of it was knowable. People said that what has happened would happen and nobody wanted to listen to them, or report on the warnings because it wasn’t something that fitted the accepted worldview in polite media company.
If you had been a white person, especially a South African white person, warning that there would be this outcome, as many did warn including many many people I knew, you were dismissed as misguided, closed minded or racist.
Just because somebody predicts something that comes true doesn't mean they should have been listened to. That doesn't follow at all.
You won’t be saying that about me when Truss comes back.
Had a call on my way home from Barclays. Suspicious payment. Have I made a payment of £629 to a Mr. Ahmed from Bradford with the reference 'rent'? No, I haven't. The payment was made on telephone banking - do you know how your details could have been compromised? Any suspicious emails you've clicked on? Do you have your card in your possession? I'm actually on a tram right now, could you call me again in 20 minutes? Sure, I'll book you in for a call at 5.30.
In the meamtime, I google the number I've been phoned from - Barclays fraud prevention. Fine.
5.30 comes and they call me back - can you confirm your card number? Have you got the app? No, I don't use banking apps. Ok, have you got your pinsentry reader?
Haven't come across this approach before, but lets go with it. OK, I've got my pinsentry reader. Ok, can you put your card in and press 'respond' and enter your pin? Ok... ...and read out the 8 digit number?
At this point - although I've checked this is Barclays ringing me - every single klaxon in my brain is screaming at me. Politely explain that I'm going to have to resolve this another way as this is exactly the information a scammer would need to get into my account. Barclays say that's fine, but I will need to make a face to face appointment in a branch and bring some photo id.
Hang up and phone Barclays phone banking. This is a bit of a palaver since I don't use phone banking and have no idea what my phone banking id is. But not as much of a palaver as you might expect.
Explain to the nice lady on the phone what had happened. "Good grief, no, we would never do that."
COOKIE YOU BLOODY IDIOT. Of course it wasn't Barclays, as your subconscious was screaming at you from the start. Turns out it's possible to make it look like you're phoning from a completely different number. I didn't know that.
The conversation had felt 'wrong' all the way through - but I put that down to the poor quality of the phone line (which itself should have been a red flag) and the natural panic about someone having my banking details. I had even thought about asking here if anyone had had a similar phone call while I was on my way home before they called me back, then thought "don't be so bloody lazy" and googled it. I even challenged him, and he - rather than tell me anything only Barclays would know, like recent transactions, told me to google the phone number. And there were probably a dozen other little clues too which the subconscious picked up but the conscious didn't - just slightly the wrong way through the conversation, just slightly too desperate a manner as he was getting close.
He was, however, very plausible.
Anyway, no money missing from account and card cancelled. So all probably fine; just feeling a bloody idiot.
It's call 'spoofing' and it is bloody nightmare for this kind of thing.
You need (we all need) to watch for "delayed disconnect" on landlines.
What is delayed disconnect?
The spam party asks you to hang up and dial another number.
Unless you put your phone down and then wait a certain time*, when you pick up to dial the other number it will still actually be connected to the original guy who will just hear some beeps and then say 'hi, my name is Janet and I am an expert in resolving banking issues - now just pass me your PIN code and we can sort this' etc
* iirc it was ten minutes ie a fucking long time but may now be two. I can't recall?
The last scam banking call I had was quite disappointing. I could quite clearly hear the background of the cafe the dude was in. "Do you want milk in that, dear?". And my innocent "Your number is listed as a banking scam" question was met with a "Well, it's f*cking wrong then, mate!".
2/10 - try harder.
I’ve had a couple of scam texts lately reading “Mum, I’ve smashed my phone, can you call me on this number”. I’m not really the target audience.
I friend of mine had her phone stolen and they clearly thought it was great japes to text her 'DAD' number "Help - I've been raped!". (Yes).
Sadly for them - DAD was the leader of the local Hells Angels-alike.
Boy, did those lads accidentally keep falling in front of motorbikes for a few years. Over and over in fact.
Thank you for this article. The problem here is so obvious that it is easy to overlook the subsequent difficulty: How should the criminal law be framed, and how shall its consequences be funded.
The problem arises with any action, communication etc relying on a system outside of the one communicating and the recipient - which in the modern world is more or less everything apart from personal conversation and paper with writing on it (what are they? a young person might ask).
Let us say that a minor criminal case depends upon: An email, a text message and the absence of any record of a transaction in a branch of Sainsbury's on the Saturday before Christmas (his alibi).
The prosecutor is to prove all this. The defendant remains mostly mute, denies everything, asserts the email and text message never existed and that the absence of record of a particular transaction in Sainsbury's is due to computer unreliability.
The task of proving every stage of these everyday matters would be burdensome in a murder case let alone some minor matter.
So what is to be done, Cyclefree, when reliance of systems no individual understands in universal, and how shall the law be framed?
To answer your and @kinabalu, Alex Chalk, when a junior justice minister, asked back in 2020 for IT and legal experts to come up with suggestions for how to deal with computer evidence. The resulting suggestions can be read here - https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5240.
The government said it would consider these. But then - as you will read in my next header - changed its mind. The lazy bastards won't even do the work to try and find a sensible answer to your very valid questions.
For the lawyers among you it explores further the nonsensical way the Law Commission approached its job.
Nick Wallis has written an excellent book on this scandal.
But there is a book to be written - and I rather think I am going to try and do it - on the common factors in all these scandals. Because that is what I keep seeing and it is what keeps being missed. Each scandal comes along with its own story and set of incompetents and villains and crushed by misery victims and inevitable report. It feels like one damn thing after another.
But there is very little joining of the dots, noticing the common patterns and the common ways in which remedies might be applied. There is very little learning and not enough going back to unpick the fundamental structures and attitudes which lead to these problems and their constant repetition. Which is what I think I am trying to do in my articles on this and similar instances.
I started doing this in my job because I kept seeing the same behaviours over and over again. And it is what I do in my work now. But I think there is scope for trying to draw some of this together in a way which illuminates. Let's face it - no-one is going to read the endless inquiry reports and because there are so many of them it is easy to feel overwhelmed. But if you could synthesise them in an attractive, compelling and thought-provoking way......
"A Handbook of British Cock-Ups" is my current working title.
Thank you for this article. The problem here is so obvious that it is easy to overlook the subsequent difficulty: How should the criminal law be framed, and how shall its consequences be funded.
The problem arises with any action, communication etc relying on a system outside of the one communicating and the recipient - which in the modern world is more or less everything apart from personal conversation and paper with writing on it (what are they? a young person might ask).
Let us say that a minor criminal case depends upon: An email, a text message and the absence of any record of a transaction in a branch of Sainsbury's on the Saturday before Christmas (his alibi).
The prosecutor is to prove all this. The defendant remains mostly mute, denies everything, asserts the email and text message never existed and that the absence of record of a particular transaction in Sainsbury's is due to computer unreliability.
The task of proving every stage of these everyday matters would be burdensome in a murder case let alone some minor matter.
So what is to be done, Cyclefree, when reliance of systems no individual understands in universal, and how shall the law be framed?
To answer your and @kinabalu, Alex Chalk, when a junior justice minister, asked back in 2020 for IT and legal experts to come up with suggestions for how to deal with computer evidence. The resulting suggestions can be read here - https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5240.
The government said it would consider these. But then - as you will read in my next header - changed its mind. The lazy bastards won't even do the work to try and find a sensible answer to your very valid questions.
For the lawyers among you it explores further the nonsensical way the Law Commission approached its job.
Nick Wallis has written an excellent book on this scandal.
But there is a book to be written - and I rather think I am going to try and do it - on the common factors in all these scandals. Because that is what I keep seeing and it is what keeps being missed. Each scandal comes along with its own story and set of incompetents and villains and crushed by misery victims and inevitable report. It feels like one damn thing after another.
But there is very little joining of the dots, noticing the common patterns and the common ways in which remedies might be applied. There is very little learning and not enough going back to unpick the fundamental structures and attitudes which lead to these problems and their constant repetition. Which is what I think I am trying to do in my articles on this and similar instances.
I started doing this in my job because I kept seeing the same behaviours over and over again. And it is what I do in my work now. But I think there is scope for trying to draw some of this together in a way which illuminates. Let's face it - no-one is going to read the endless inquiry reports and because there are so many of them it is easy to feel overwhelmed. But if you could synthesise them in an attractive, compelling and thought-provoking way......
"A Handbook of British Cock-Ups" is my current working title.
Hmm! I'm actually reminded about books I have read about aircraft crashes and the maintenance of safety. Mind, the plane folk do tend to be better at learning lessons, like the copilot not being frightened to query something the pilot is doing if it seems wrong. Their crashes are rather more visible, I suppose.
The Railways set a good example in this respect. Study the cause of the crash, and learn from it.
The PO is still in denial. The Government too, I suspect.
Quite a bit of denial and squealing from the railways, even so. The cover up after the Dee Bridge disaster to protect Stephenson, as in Peter Lewis's book (brittle cast iron in a design which imposed torsional loads and then had lots of extra stone ballast dumped on it not in the original sums) ... but on the whole they moved on, so to speak.
This is in top tier of scandals involving the justice system in the history of the UK
It is, and Ms Cyclefree makes a couple of points of importance that I had not previously appreciated.
The Inquiry will not be looking at the role of the Law Commission, or Government. Since these are two of the biggest contributors to the scandal, the final report is bound to be a bit lopsided.
The other elephant in the room not mentioned in this thread piece, though she does so elsewhere, is the formidable amount of time it is taking to work through the evidence. This is partly due to the Post Office's deliberate attempts to slow the machinery down. The Government, which owns the PO, could do something about this, so we can safely assume it is happy to have the Inquiry wade slowly through treacle.
A point about electronic evidence as discussed in the thread header, for which many thanks to Cyclefree - I remember reading a book some years ago by a forensic computer scientist who had a very poor view of some of the cases he had examined for the defence. IIRC, one was that the prosecution hadn't checked if the system clock was set right (it wasn't, so the evidence being tied in with other sources was completely out of kilter, with obvious problems for such things as alibis). Another was that the prosecution had not noticed that the sysadmin had poked around in the files etc. (out of c uriosity maybe rather than malice?) so the evidence was completely corrupted in thje legal sense. My clear sense was even then to go straight to a solicitor and ensure such a person is called in ab initio if I am ever accused of any such thing.
Okay, so the author would want to show off his triumphs, and I didn't verify them, but after seeing what the PO have perpetrated ... more generally, I can't believe there haven't been miscarriages of justice already.
The deeper difficulty is not the bare problem. This is obvious and always has been ever since someone tried to defend a case against a speed camera - O happy simple days.
Everything beyond face to face conversation and paper with handwriting on it goes through systems, of potentially infinite complexity, which no individual fully understands. If a prosecutor has to prove, every time, and in reliable scientific terms that what came out from a device was what went in at the other end, or that a till receipt for 47p in fact reflects the reality of the transaction the entire criminal law edifice would collapse.
That though comes down to reasonable doubt sorry. Most people faced by wrong computer facts are in no position to prove it. I say this as a software engineer....hell I would have trouble proving it against a system I didn't know and that is before I ask to look at the software to identify possible issues and get told no its a secret and we cant let you look at it.
If you wish to stack it against people where its there word against the computers then arguing the burden is too much for the prosecution of actually proving what they allege happened because a computer says it did then thats the way to do it
The one area where challenging the computer used to be effective was speeding fines. That lawyer who used to get celebrities off would (iirc) challenge the police as to whether their equipment had been properly recalibrated since the old king died, and invariably it had not.
Thank you for this article. The problem here is so obvious that it is easy to overlook the subsequent difficulty: How should the criminal law be framed, and how shall its consequences be funded.
The problem arises with any action, communication etc relying on a system outside of the one communicating and the recipient - which in the modern world is more or less everything apart from personal conversation and paper with writing on it (what are they? a young person might ask).
Let us say that a minor criminal case depends upon: An email, a text message and the absence of any record of a transaction in a branch of Sainsbury's on the Saturday before Christmas (his alibi).
The prosecutor is to prove all this. The defendant remains mostly mute, denies everything, asserts the email and text message never existed and that the absence of record of a particular transaction in Sainsbury's is due to computer unreliability.
The task of proving every stage of these everyday matters would be burdensome in a murder case let alone some minor matter.
So what is to be done, Cyclefree, when reliance of systems no individual understands in universal, and how shall the law be framed?
To answer your and @kinabalu, Alex Chalk, when a junior justice minister, asked back in 2020 for IT and legal experts to come up with suggestions for how to deal with computer evidence. The resulting suggestions can be read here - https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5240.
The government said it would consider these. But then - as you will read in my next header - changed its mind. The lazy bastards won't even do the work to try and find a sensible answer to your very valid questions.
For the lawyers among you it explores further the nonsensical way the Law Commission approached its job.
Nick Wallis has written an excellent book on this scandal.
But there is a book to be written - and I rather think I am going to try and do it - on the common factors in all these scandals. Because that is what I keep seeing and it is what keeps being missed. Each scandal comes along with its own story and set of incompetents and villains and crushed by misery victims and inevitable report. It feels like one damn thing after another.
But there is very little joining of the dots, noticing the common patterns and the common ways in which remedies might be applied. There is very little learning and not enough going back to unpick the fundamental structures and attitudes which lead to these problems and their constant repetition. Which is what I think I am trying to do in my articles on this and similar instances.
I started doing this in my job because I kept seeing the same behaviours over and over again. And it is what I do in my work now. But I think there is scope for trying to draw some of this together in a way which illuminates. Let's face it - no-one is going to read the endless inquiry reports and because there are so many of them it is easy to feel overwhelmed. But if you could synthesise them in an attractive, compelling and thought-provoking way......
"A Handbook of British Cock-Ups" is my current working title.
Hmm! I'm actually reminded about books I have read about aircraft crashes and the maintenance of safety. Mind, the plane folk do tend to be better at learning lessons, like the copilot not being frightened to query something the pilot is doing if it seems wrong. Their crashes are rather more visible, I suppose.
The Railways set a good example in this respect. Study the cause of the crash, and learn from it.
The PO is still in denial. The Government too, I suspect.
Quite a bit of denial and squealing from the railways, even so. The cover up after the Dee Bridge disaster to protect Stephenson, as in Peter Lewis's book (brittle cast iron in a design which imposed torsional loads and then had lots of extra stone ballast dumped on it not in the original sums) ... but on the whole they moved on, so to speak.
Railway accidents were a regular thing sixty years ago. They are virtually unheard of in this country now.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
I don't disagree and we basically never have any long form interviews on MSM these days with politicians. Which I think is a a great shame and YouTube is now where you have to go to find intellectual debates of ideas.
But at the time, Newsnight got much high ratings and politicians felt the need to be on there to defend their message.
This is in top tier of scandals involving the justice system in the history of the UK
It is, and Ms Cyclefree makes a couple of points of importance that I had not previously appreciated.
The Inquiry will not be looking at the role of the Law Commission, or Government. Since these are two of the biggest contributors to the scandal, the final report is bound to be a bit lopsided.
The other elephant in the room not mentioned in this thread piece, though she does so elsewhere, is the formidable amount of time it is taking to work through the evidence. This is partly due to the Post Office's deliberate attempts to slow the machinery down. The Government, which owns the PO, could do something about this, so we can safely assume it is happy to have the Inquiry wade slowly through treacle.
A point about electronic evidence as discussed in the thread header, for which many thanks to Cyclefree - I remember reading a book some years ago by a forensic computer scientist who had a very poor view of some of the cases he had examined for the defence. IIRC, one was that the prosecution hadn't checked if the system clock was set right (it wasn't, so the evidence being tied in with other sources was completely out of kilter, with obvious problems for such things as alibis). Another was that the prosecution had not noticed that the sysadmin had poked around in the files etc. (out of c uriosity maybe rather than malice?) so the evidence was completely corrupted in thje legal sense. My clear sense was even then to go straight to a solicitor and ensure such a person is called in ab initio if I am ever accused of any such thing.
Okay, so the author would want to show off his triumphs, and I didn't verify them, but after seeing what the PO have perpetrated ... more generally, I can't believe there haven't been miscarriages of justice already.
The deeper difficulty is not the bare problem. This is obvious and always has been ever since someone tried to defend a case against a speed camera - O happy simple days.
Everything beyond face to face conversation and paper with handwriting on it goes through systems, of potentially infinite complexity, which no individual fully understands. If a prosecutor has to prove, every time, and in reliable scientific terms that what came out from a device was what went in at the other end, or that a till receipt for 47p in fact reflects the reality of the transaction the entire criminal law edifice would collapse.
That though comes down to reasonable doubt sorry. Most people faced by wrong computer facts are in no position to prove it. I say this as a software engineer....hell I would have trouble proving it against a system I didn't know and that is before I ask to look at the software to identify possible issues and get told no its a secret and we cant let you look at it.
If you wish to stack it against people where its there word against the computers then arguing the burden is too much for the prosecution of actually proving what they allege happened because a computer says it did then thats the way to do it
The one area where challenging the computer used to be effective was speeding fines. That lawyer who used to get celebrities off would (iirc) challenge the police as to whether their equipment had been properly recalibrated since the old king died, and invariably it had not.
It was precisely this practice which led to the Law Commission reversing the onus of proof where computer technology was concerned - with disatrous results for the Post Office and its unfortunate Subpostmasters.
This is in top tier of scandals involving the justice system in the history of the UK
It is, and Ms Cyclefree makes a couple of points of importance that I had not previously appreciated.
The Inquiry will not be looking at the role of the Law Commission, or Government. Since these are two of the biggest contributors to the scandal, the final report is bound to be a bit lopsided.
The other elephant in the room not mentioned in this thread piece, though she does so elsewhere, is the formidable amount of time it is taking to work through the evidence. This is partly due to the Post Office's deliberate attempts to slow the machinery down. The Government, which owns the PO, could do something about this, so we can safely assume it is happy to have the Inquiry wade slowly through treacle.
A point about electronic evidence as discussed in the thread header, for which many thanks to Cyclefree - I remember reading a book some years ago by a forensic computer scientist who had a very poor view of some of the cases he had examined for the defence. IIRC, one was that the prosecution hadn't checked if the system clock was set right (it wasn't, so the evidence being tied in with other sources was completely out of kilter, with obvious problems for such things as alibis). Another was that the prosecution had not noticed that the sysadmin had poked around in the files etc. (out of c uriosity maybe rather than malice?) so the evidence was completely corrupted in thje legal sense. My clear sense was even then to go straight to a solicitor and ensure such a person is called in ab initio if I am ever accused of any such thing.
Okay, so the author would want to show off his triumphs, and I didn't verify them, but after seeing what the PO have perpetrated ... more generally, I can't believe there haven't been miscarriages of justice already.
The deeper difficulty is not the bare problem. This is obvious and always has been ever since someone tried to defend a case against a speed camera - O happy simple days.
Everything beyond face to face conversation and paper with handwriting on it goes through systems, of potentially infinite complexity, which no individual fully understands. If a prosecutor has to prove, every time, and in reliable scientific terms that what came out from a device was what went in at the other end, or that a till receipt for 47p in fact reflects the reality of the transaction the entire criminal law edifice would collapse.
That though comes down to reasonable doubt sorry. Most people faced by wrong computer facts are in no position to prove it. I say this as a software engineer....hell I would have trouble proving it against a system I didn't know and that is before I ask to look at the software to identify possible issues and get told no its a secret and we cant let you look at it.
If you wish to stack it against people where its there word against the computers then arguing the burden is too much for the prosecution of actually proving what they allege happened because a computer says it did then thats the way to do it
The one area where challenging the computer used to be effective was speeding fines. That lawyer who used to get celebrities off would (iirc) challenge the police as to whether their equipment had been properly recalibrated since the old king died, and invariably it had not.
It was precisely this practice which led to the Law Commission reversing the onus of proof where computer technology was concerned - with disatrous results for the Post Office and its unfortunate Subpostmasters.
If the only evidence they have is a computer says so its definitely not beyond reasonably doubt, any complex softwar has bugs
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
There is a single state from the river to the sea, no?
There is, just not the correct one from some perspectives.
Here’s one for the PB brains, is there any other country that is defined by a border between a river and the sea? I’m guessing a South American country is most likely but maybe a small west African country could have had its border set that way.
Uruguay
An independent Cornwall. From the Tamar to the Sea.
To have a country that was completely from the river to the sea you'd need a river that ran from the sea to the sea, which seems unlikely.
The stats coming out of South Africa are mind boggling
In 2022-23 the UK endured about 660 homicides
In the 2nd quarter of 2023 - ie in just 3 months - South Africa endured 7,000 murders, and 13,000 sexual assaults - those are the ones recorded by police
“The police also recorded 6 009 hijackings, 6 045 robberies at residential properties and 4 910 robberies at non-residential premises.”
This is a major state on the brink of failure, yet how often is it mentioned?
There's a guy, I think, who writes periodically about this on, I think, Unherd.
But yes, it's interesting how seldom it's mentioned. Is it because we have mentally placed SA in a box marked 'third world' and just expect it to be terrible? Or is it because we all tacitly agreed that apartheid was so bad that whatever replaced it had to work and we just don't want to know that it didn't?
It worked to end apartheid.
Well yes. And I would think that yer average South African is as a result better off today than in 1989. But it's not 100% obvious that if that is the case that it will still be the case next year.
Thing is, was there any other option? Was there any way of ending apartheid without handing power to an organisation which seems both corrupt and criminal? Was failure just baked in to post-apartheid South Africa?
The perils of one party rule is probably one thing it shows. Corruption often thrives in such places. But no, I wouldn't say it was at all inevitable that the country would be in a parlous state 30 years later. As I said it's rather tragic if that's the case.
Lessons? I don't know apart from the obvious one of don't go for apartheid if you want a free and prosperous country. It won't just preclude that while it's in place it could also be a devil to shrug off once it's lifted.
Some countries move towards greater democracy, some move away from such. Over the same time period, the nascent democracy in Russia has faded and democracy has taken some knocks in Hungary and even the US, while countries like Benin, Ghana and Senegal have become more democratic and prosperous. So there’s no obvious correlation with skin colour or coloniser/colonised status, despite the desire of some to cast every story in racial terms.
A chart of the relative GDP per capita / life expectancy / murder rates of Botswana and South Africa would show the former thriving and the latter struggling.
In 1990, Botswana had a GDP per capita a third of South Africa's. It's now almost 20% higher.
Botswana is a great success story.
Like Lee Kwan Yiew, Sir Seretse Khama was a statesman. There are so few of them.
The story of his (interracial) marriage and its effect on UK-South Africa relations is amazing.
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
There is a single state from the river to the sea, no?
There is, just not the correct one from some perspectives.
Here’s one for the PB brains, is there any other country that is defined by a border between a river and the sea? I’m guessing a South American country is most likely but maybe a small west African country could have had its border set that way.
Uruguay
An independent Cornwall. From the Tamar to the Sea.
To have a country that was completely from the river to the sea you'd need a river that ran from the sea to the sea, which seems unlikely.
So long as one of the seas is higher than the other, it should be fine.
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Standard MO for any public service when asked to find savings - go straight for something they notice, and then parade your bleeding stumps publicly so nobody asks you to find any more savings ever again.
The thing is Newsnight has piss poor viewership these days. It really isn't the essential viewing it was 20 years ago when Paxman was Paxo'ing lying politicians every night. High profile politicians don't even feel the need to go on there anymore as it doesn't set the agenda in the way it used to.
Obviously the BBC could easily save £40-50 million by again cutting the shit show that is BBC Three from being over the air that has Talk TV levels of live viewership. Absolutely no need for it. If they want to fund edgy untested show for da yuff, just stick it on iPlayer.
And of course most of the public have no idea about how BBC Studios / Worldwide operates and that BBC owns UKTV, which in bring loads of revenue on top of licence fee (and have ads).
Quite. But Newsnight is probably still fairly influential with policy makers, which is probably why it's been selected for the swinging axe.
Same as what happens whenever the NHS decides it wants more public money - always wards and nurses threatened, not the massive layers of bureaucracy behind them.
The stats coming out of South Africa are mind boggling
In 2022-23 the UK endured about 660 homicides
In the 2nd quarter of 2023 - ie in just 3 months - South Africa endured 7,000 murders, and 13,000 sexual assaults - those are the ones recorded by police
“The police also recorded 6 009 hijackings, 6 045 robberies at residential properties and 4 910 robberies at non-residential premises.”
This is a major state on the brink of failure, yet how often is it mentioned?
There's a guy, I think, who writes periodically about this on, I think, Unherd.
But yes, it's interesting how seldom it's mentioned. Is it because we have mentally placed SA in a box marked 'third world' and just expect it to be terrible? Or is it because we all tacitly agreed that apartheid was so bad that whatever replaced it had to work and we just don't want to know that it didn't?
It worked to end apartheid.
Well yes. And I would think that yer average South African is as a result better off today than in 1989. But it's not 100% obvious that if that is the case that it will still be the case next year.
Thing is, was there any other option? Was there any way of ending apartheid without handing power to an organisation which seems both corrupt and criminal? Was failure just baked in to post-apartheid South Africa?
The perils of one party rule is probably one thing it shows. Corruption often thrives in such places. But no, I wouldn't say it was at all inevitable that the country would be in a parlous state 30 years later. As I said it's rather tragic if that's the case.
Lessons? I don't know apart from the obvious one of don't go for apartheid if you want a free and prosperous country. It won't just preclude that while it's in place it could also be a devil to shrug off once it's lifted.
Some countries move towards greater democracy, some move away from such. Over the same time period, the nascent democracy in Russia has faded and democracy has taken some knocks in Hungary and even the US, while countries like Benin, Ghana and Senegal have become more democratic and prosperous. So there’s no obvious correlation with skin colour or coloniser/colonised status, despite the desire of some to cast every story in racial terms.
A chart of the relative GDP per capita / life expectancy / murder rates of Botswana and South Africa would show the former thriving and the latter struggling.
In 1990, Botswana had a GDP per capita a third of South Africa's. It's now almost 20% higher.
Botswana is a great success story.
Like Lee Kwan Yiew, Sir Seretse Khama was a statesman. There are so few of them.
The story of his (interracial) marriage and its effect on UK-South Africa relations is amazing.
A good film on it a few years back "A United Kingdom"
Thank you for this article. The problem here is so obvious that it is easy to overlook the subsequent difficulty: How should the criminal law be framed, and how shall its consequences be funded.
The problem arises with any action, communication etc relying on a system outside of the one communicating and the recipient - which in the modern world is more or less everything apart from personal conversation and paper with writing on it (what are they? a young person might ask).
Let us say that a minor criminal case depends upon: An email, a text message and the absence of any record of a transaction in a branch of Sainsbury's on the Saturday before Christmas (his alibi).
The prosecutor is to prove all this. The defendant remains mostly mute, denies everything, asserts the email and text message never existed and that the absence of record of a particular transaction in Sainsbury's is due to computer unreliability.
The task of proving every stage of these everyday matters would be burdensome in a murder case let alone some minor matter.
So what is to be done, Cyclefree, when reliance of systems no individual understands in universal, and how shall the law be framed?
To answer your and @kinabalu, Alex Chalk, when a junior justice minister, asked back in 2020 for IT and legal experts to come up with suggestions for how to deal with computer evidence. The resulting suggestions can be read here - https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5240.
The government said it would consider these. But then - as you will read in my next header - changed its mind. The lazy bastards won't even do the work to try and find a sensible answer to your very valid questions.
For the lawyers among you it explores further the nonsensical way the Law Commission approached its job.
Nick Wallis has written an excellent book on this scandal.
But there is a book to be written - and I rather think I am going to try and do it - on the common factors in all these scandals. Because that is what I keep seeing and it is what keeps being missed. Each scandal comes along with its own story and set of incompetents and villains and crushed by misery victims and inevitable report. It feels like one damn thing after another.
But there is very little joining of the dots, noticing the common patterns and the common ways in which remedies might be applied. There is very little learning and not enough going back to unpick the fundamental structures and attitudes which lead to these problems and their constant repetition. Which is what I think I am trying to do in my articles on this and similar instances.
I started doing this in my job because I kept seeing the same behaviours over and over again. And it is what I do in my work now. But I think there is scope for trying to draw some of this together in a way which illuminates. Let's face it - no-one is going to read the endless inquiry reports and because there are so many of them it is easy to feel overwhelmed. But if you could synthesise them in an attractive, compelling and thought-provoking way......
"A Handbook of British Cock-Ups" is my current working title.
Hmm! I'm actually reminded about books I have read about aircraft crashes and the maintenance of safety. Mind, the plane folk do tend to be better at learning lessons, like the copilot not being frightened to query something the pilot is doing if it seems wrong. Their crashes are rather more visible, I suppose.
The Railways set a good example in this respect. Study the cause of the crash, and learn from it.
The PO is still in denial. The Government too, I suspect.
Quite a bit of denial and squealing from the railways, even so. The cover up after the Dee Bridge disaster to protect Stephenson, as in Peter Lewis's book (brittle cast iron in a design which imposed torsional loads and then had lots of extra stone ballast dumped on it not in the original sums) ... but on the whole they moved on, so to speak.
Railway accidents were a regular thing sixty years ago. They are virtually unheard of in this country now.
C'mon Peter. Some of us are old enough to remember Clapham Common (1988) or Ladbroke Grove (1999), though it's true there hasn't been a double-digit fatal crash since 2001. All the gory details here:
One of the saddest was Shipton on Cherwell (Xmas eve, 1874). Not far from me is the grave of one of the victims. It still gives pause for thought, all those people going home to their families from far and wide, never to arrive.
This is in top tier of scandals involving the justice system in the history of the UK
It is, and Ms Cyclefree makes a couple of points of importance that I had not previously appreciated.
The Inquiry will not be looking at the role of the Law Commission, or Government. Since these are two of the biggest contributors to the scandal, the final report is bound to be a bit lopsided.
The other elephant in the room not mentioned in this thread piece, though she does so elsewhere, is the formidable amount of time it is taking to work through the evidence. This is partly due to the Post Office's deliberate attempts to slow the machinery down. The Government, which owns the PO, could do something about this, so we can safely assume it is happy to have the Inquiry wade slowly through treacle.
A point about electronic evidence as discussed in the thread header, for which many thanks to Cyclefree - I remember reading a book some years ago by a forensic computer scientist who had a very poor view of some of the cases he had examined for the defence. IIRC, one was that the prosecution hadn't checked if the system clock was set right (it wasn't, so the evidence being tied in with other sources was completely out of kilter, with obvious problems for such things as alibis). Another was that the prosecution had not noticed that the sysadmin had poked around in the files etc. (out of c uriosity maybe rather than malice?) so the evidence was completely corrupted in thje legal sense. My clear sense was even then to go straight to a solicitor and ensure such a person is called in ab initio if I am ever accused of any such thing.
Okay, so the author would want to show off his triumphs, and I didn't verify them, but after seeing what the PO have perpetrated ... more generally, I can't believe there haven't been miscarriages of justice already.
The deeper difficulty is not the bare problem. This is obvious and always has been ever since someone tried to defend a case against a speed camera - O happy simple days.
Everything beyond face to face conversation and paper with handwriting on it goes through systems, of potentially infinite complexity, which no individual fully understands. If a prosecutor has to prove, every time, and in reliable scientific terms that what came out from a device was what went in at the other end, or that a till receipt for 47p in fact reflects the reality of the transaction the entire criminal law edifice would collapse.
That though comes down to reasonable doubt sorry. Most people faced by wrong computer facts are in no position to prove it. I say this as a software engineer....hell I would have trouble proving it against a system I didn't know and that is before I ask to look at the software to identify possible issues and get told no its a secret and we cant let you look at it.
If you wish to stack it against people where its there word against the computers then arguing the burden is too much for the prosecution of actually proving what they allege happened because a computer says it did then thats the way to do it
The one area where challenging the computer used to be effective was speeding fines. That lawyer who used to get celebrities off would (iirc) challenge the police as to whether their equipment had been properly recalibrated since the old king died, and invariably it had not.
It was precisely this practice which led to the Law Commission reversing the onus of proof where computer technology was concerned - with disatrous results for the Post Office and its unfortunate Subpostmasters.
If the only evidence they have is a computer says so its definitely not beyond reasonably doubt, any complex softwar has bugs
Jeepers, Pagan, you know that, I know that, but the PO didn't and nor apparently did its lawyers. And when it became obvious Horizon had bugs, what did they do? They pressed on with more prosecutions.
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
There is a single state from the river to the sea, no?
There is, just not the correct one from some perspectives.
Here’s one for the PB brains, is there any other country that is defined by a border between a river and the sea? I’m guessing a South American country is most likely but maybe a small west African country could have had its border set that way.
Uruguay
An independent Cornwall. From the Tamar to the Sea.
To have a country that was completely from the river to the sea you'd need a river that ran from the sea to the sea, which seems unlikely.
So long as one of the seas is higher than the other, it should be fine.
It's 'the sea' singular; the river has to run from the sea to the sea.
Holland (as opposed to The Netherlands) is pretty much bounded by the Rhine–Meuse–Scheldt river system and the sea.
On a lighter note, I am nursing my bruised ego in my favourite station pub in Manchester's best station, Victoria. 20-odd beers, peanuts served by the glass, and St. Ettiene on the stereo. The photo below, from the way in, is for @Sunil_Prasannan if he's around.
Rudimentary defensive works versus Scotland, seeing as how you've allowed Hadrian's Wall to crumble & tumble . . .
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
There is a single state from the river to the sea, no?
There is, just not the correct one from some perspectives.
Here’s one for the PB brains, is there any other country that is defined by a border between a river and the sea? I’m guessing a South American country is most likely but maybe a small west African country could have had its border set that way.
Uruguay
An independent Cornwall. From the Tamar to the Sea.
To have a country that was completely from the river to the sea you'd need a river that ran from the sea to the sea, which seems unlikely.
So long as one of the seas is higher than the other, it should be fine.
So we just have to find a country that slopes downwards. I shall go get the marbles.
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
There is a single state from the river to the sea, no?
There is, just not the correct one from some perspectives.
Here’s one for the PB brains, is there any other country that is defined by a border between a river and the sea? I’m guessing a South American country is most likely but maybe a small west African country could have had its border set that way.
Uruguay
An independent Cornwall. From the Tamar to the Sea.
To have a country that was completely from the river to the sea you'd need a river that ran from the sea to the sea, which seems unlikely.
So long as one of the seas is higher than the other, it should be fine.
So we just have to find a country that slopes downwards. I shall go get the marbles.
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Standard MO for any public service when asked to find savings - go straight for something they notice, and then parade your bleeding stumps publicly so nobody asks you to find any more savings ever again.
The thing is Newsnight has piss poor viewership these days. It really isn't the essential viewing it was 20 years ago when Paxman was Paxo'ing lying politicians every night. High profile politicians don't even feel the need to go on there anymore as it doesn't set the agenda in the way it used to.
Obviously the BBC could easily save £40-50 million by again cutting the shit show that is BBC Three from being over the air that has Talk TV levels of live viewership. Absolutely no need for it. If they want to fund edgy untested show for da yuff, just stick it on iPlayer.
And of course most of the public have no idea about how BBC Studios / Worldwide operates and that BBC owns UKTV, which in bring loads of revenue on top of licence fee (and have ads).
Quite. But Newsnight is probably still fairly influential with policy makers, which is probably why it's been selected for the swinging axe.
Same as what happens whenever the NHS decides it wants more public money - always wards and nurses threatened, not the massive layers of bureaucracy behind them.
What bureaucracy - the percentage of overall revenue spent on management is insanely low?
Ah eureka moment! South Africa's problems are not reported because an African country struggling after ending white supremacy rule is an inconvenient truth for the woke left who control the media narrative in the west. Oh my giddy aunt I'm slow.
Or the media narrative in the west was so blinded by Nelson Mandela, who was truly a good guy, that they couldn’t look past him at what the ANc were actually saying and doing before he was President and whilst he was president and so it’s a bit embarrassing to say “you know we got really excited about this brave exciting new future for SA under Nelson, well we might have got it wrong and our focus should have been on the corrupt, murderous thugs in all the senior positions in the ANC, sorry.”
So best to move along, nothing to see as it undermines the simplistic narrative they went with against the warnings from people, who made these warnings, they assumed were just racist.
Not sure it was simplistic for people here to celebrate the end of Apartheid without getting overly angsty or interventionist about how South Africa would subsequently develop. I can't imagine what a better or more appropriate mindset would have looked like.
People were right to celebrate the end of apartheid as it was awful, and I’m guessing that you, like me, spent lots of time in SA under apartheid and saw it in reality, but maybe people need to learn that getting interventionist and angsty about how things will turn out once their simplistic hopes come true is actually quite important.
Picking a completely random place, Palestine maybe. All the lovely folk chanting and lighting candles singing kumbaya wanting a single state, from the river to the sea, might like to contemplate who they really are backing and what those people really want.
So it actually creates a major responsibility for the media to not just report what makes them feel nice and fuzzy but the hard truths of what happens next.
Otherwise it’s just wishcasting and by the time the reality takes shape it’s too late to actually apply any influence to stop the hardliners hiding behind the acceptable faces.
There is a single state from the river to the sea, no?
There is, just not the correct one from some perspectives.
Here’s one for the PB brains, is there any other country that is defined by a border between a river and the sea? I’m guessing a South American country is most likely but maybe a small west African country could have had its border set that way.
Uruguay
An independent Cornwall. From the Tamar to the Sea.
To have a country that was completely from the river to the sea you'd need a river that ran from the sea to the sea, which seems unlikely.
So long as one of the seas is higher than the other, it should be fine.
So we just have to find a country that slopes downwards. I shall go get the marbles.
Some landline systems do not disconnect calls immediately. So you think you've hung up and the bad actor plays a dialling tone down the phone; you dial the bank's number, and they say "Hello, this is your bank."
Except it's not a new call; it's the old one.
AIUI you can get around it by using a different phone or mobile, or making another call to someone (make sure it connects).
I wonder why landline systems are set up in this way. Some artefact of old systems?
I think it's one of those ancient things that was once "just the way it worked" (because the caller is paying for the call it matters that they can terminate it; it probably initially seemed less important that the caller could do so quickly), then got kept around through various technology transitions because some people relied on it as a feature (if you have multiple wired in landline phones around your house this lets you put down the handset on the hallway phone you originally picked up the call on and go and use the bedroom phone instead, because the call stays connected in the time between you putting down one handset and picking up the other), and then more recently has been being changed because of the fraud problem. Supposedly BT cut it from 2 minutes to 10 seconds in 2014 (which by that point was just "change a config value in the digital exchange"; would no doubt have been more painful in the days of analogue mechanical exchanges).
Thank you for this article. The problem here is so obvious that it is easy to overlook the subsequent difficulty: How should the criminal law be framed, and how shall its consequences be funded.
The problem arises with any action, communication etc relying on a system outside of the one communicating and the recipient - which in the modern world is more or less everything apart from personal conversation and paper with writing on it (what are they? a young person might ask).
Let us say that a minor criminal case depends upon: An email, a text message and the absence of any record of a transaction in a branch of Sainsbury's on the Saturday before Christmas (his alibi).
The prosecutor is to prove all this. The defendant remains mostly mute, denies everything, asserts the email and text message never existed and that the absence of record of a particular transaction in Sainsbury's is due to computer unreliability.
The task of proving every stage of these everyday matters would be burdensome in a murder case let alone some minor matter.
So what is to be done, Cyclefree, when reliance of systems no individual understands in universal, and how shall the law be framed?
To answer your and @kinabalu, Alex Chalk, when a junior justice minister, asked back in 2020 for IT and legal experts to come up with suggestions for how to deal with computer evidence. The resulting suggestions can be read here - https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5240.
The government said it would consider these. But then - as you will read in my next header - changed its mind. The lazy bastards won't even do the work to try and find a sensible answer to your very valid questions.
For the lawyers among you it explores further the nonsensical way the Law Commission approached its job.
Nick Wallis has written an excellent book on this scandal.
But there is a book to be written - and I rather think I am going to try and do it - on the common factors in all these scandals. Because that is what I keep seeing and it is what keeps being missed. Each scandal comes along with its own story and set of incompetents and villains and crushed by misery victims and inevitable report. It feels like one damn thing after another.
But there is very little joining of the dots, noticing the common patterns and the common ways in which remedies might be applied. There is very little learning and not enough going back to unpick the fundamental structures and attitudes which lead to these problems and their constant repetition. Which is what I think I am trying to do in my articles on this and similar instances.
I started doing this in my job because I kept seeing the same behaviours over and over again. And it is what I do in my work now. But I think there is scope for trying to draw some of this together in a way which illuminates. Let's face it - no-one is going to read the endless inquiry reports and because there are so many of them it is easy to feel overwhelmed. But if you could synthesise them in an attractive, compelling and thought-provoking way......
"A Handbook of British Cock-Ups" is my current working title.
Hmm! I'm actually reminded about books I have read about aircraft crashes and the maintenance of safety. Mind, the plane folk do tend to be better at learning lessons, like the copilot not being frightened to query something the pilot is doing if it seems wrong. Their crashes are rather more visible, I suppose.
The Railways set a good example in this respect. Study the cause of the crash, and learn from it.
The PO is still in denial. The Government too, I suspect.
Quite a bit of denial and squealing from the railways, even so. The cover up after the Dee Bridge disaster to protect Stephenson, as in Peter Lewis's book (brittle cast iron in a design which imposed torsional loads and then had lots of extra stone ballast dumped on it not in the original sums) ... but on the whole they moved on, so to speak.
Railway accidents were a regular thing sixty years ago. They are virtually unheard of in this country now.
C'mon Peter. Some of us are old enough to remember Clapham Common (1988) or Ladbroke Grove (1999), though it's true there hasn't been a double-digit fatal crash since 2001. All the gory details here:
One of the saddest was Shipton on Cherwell (Xmas eve, 1874). Not far from me is the grave of one of the victims. It still gives pause for thought, all those people going home to their families from far and wide, never to arrive.
Peter Lewis's book on that disaster is fascinating.
Another Christmassy crash was the landslip in Sonning Cutting (engineer: I. K. Brunel). Christmas Eve 1841. Led to Gladstone's Railways Act, apparently.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
Not as much as I’m looking forward to the Netflix version of the same story with Gillian Anderson and some bloke who I don’t much care about because Gillian Anderson is playing Emily Matlis.
Politicians get seduced by science and technology. It's shiny and they keep getting told that they can trust the people building it because it will work this time. Then it doesn't. Rinse and repeat.
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Standard MO for any public service when asked to find savings - go straight for something they notice, and then parade your bleeding stumps publicly so nobody asks you to find any more savings ever again.
The thing is Newsnight has piss poor viewership these days. It really isn't the essential viewing it was 20 years ago when Paxman was Paxo'ing lying politicians every night. High profile politicians don't even feel the need to go on there anymore as it doesn't set the agenda in the way it used to.
Obviously the BBC could easily save £40-50 million by again cutting the shit show that is BBC Three from being over the air that has Talk TV levels of live viewership. Absolutely no need for it. If they want to fund edgy untested show for da yuff, just stick it on iPlayer.
And of course most of the public have no idea about how BBC Studios / Worldwide operates and that BBC owns UKTV, which in bring loads of revenue on top of licence fee (and have ads).
Quite. But Newsnight is probably still fairly influential with policy makers, which is probably why it's been selected for the swinging axe.
Same as what happens whenever the NHS decides it wants more public money - always wards and nurses threatened, not the massive layers of bureaucracy behind them.
What bureaucracy - the percentage of overall revenue spent on management is insanely low?
Low compared to what? Can you tell me why providing medical care requires a huge Department of Health, sitting above a huge NHS England (or home nation equivalents), sitting above huge regional NHS Trusts, sitting above significant numbers of hospital administrators and managers, before anyone has so much as administered a cough lozenge?
The NHS employs numbers commensurate with the worldwide employees of Macdonalds. And the whole thing is still a huge balls up at the best of times.
On a lighter note, I am nursing my bruised ego in my favourite station pub in Manchester's best station, Victoria. 20-odd beers, peanuts served by the glass, and St. Ettiene on the stereo. The photo below, from the way in, is for @Sunil_Prasannan if he's around.
Rwandan support for the UK’s flagship migration scheme is at risk because of continued delays to getting flights off the ground, ministers have been warned.
Senior diplomats have privately told the Foreign Office that Rwanda’s commitment to the scheme cannot be taken for granted. They fear that the longer the flights are delayed, the more questions will be asked by authorities in Kigali about the scheme’s sustainability.
On a lighter note, I am nursing my bruised ego in my favourite station pub in Manchester's best station, Victoria. 20-odd beers, peanuts served by the glass, and St. Ettiene on the stereo. The photo below, from the way in, is for @Sunil_Prasannan if he's around.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
She has already commented the cuts to Newsnight mean that interview could never be repeated
Calling BS....BBC have managed to do things like Schofield interview without it having to be Newsnight. Amol Rajan has got to do numerous serious sit down interviews over the past few years. Martin Bashir also did them through Panorama if I remember correctly.
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
It is very distracting having Miriam Stoppard's hair repeatedly intrude into the shot of Mrs Thatcher. I'm surprised Yorkshire Television could not set this up properly.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
She has already commented the cuts to Newsnight mean that interview could never be repeated
Calling BS....BBC have managed to do things like Schofield interview without it having to be Newsnight. Amol Rajan has got to do numerous serious sit down interviews over the past few years. Martin Bashir also did them through Panorama if I remember correctly.
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
Now you could argue they could be doing more and that funding is restraining their activities, but then they are happy to spend plenty of money on stuff that is already provided better by others and failed twice i.e. BBC Three.
Panorama is a piss poor programme these days, but they still seem to be able to send reporters all over the globe, but more often than not it is very weak content.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
She has already commented the cuts to Newsnight mean that interview could never be repeated
Calling BS....BBC have managed to do things like Schofield interview without it having to be Newsnight. Amol Rajan has got to do numerous serious sit down interviews over the past few years. Martin Bashir also did them through Panorama if I remember correctly.
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
Pretty big expose of whistleblowing and cover up in the Sussex Hospitals tonight on Newsnight. This sort of investigation is much more useful than more talking heads.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
She has already commented the cuts to Newsnight mean that interview could never be repeated
Calling BS....BBC have managed to do things like Schofield interview without it having to be Newsnight. Amol Rajan has got to do numerous serious sit down interviews over the past few years. Martin Bashir also did them through Panorama if I remember correctly.
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
Pretty big expose of whistleblowing and cover up in the Sussex Hospitals tonight on Newsnight. This sort of investigation is much more useful than more talking heads.
Talking head stuff is absolutely the worst import from the US. It is rarely informative, mostly setup for clickbait arguments.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
She has already commented the cuts to Newsnight mean that interview could never be repeated
Calling BS....BBC have managed to do things like Schofield interview without it having to be Newsnight. Amol Rajan has got to do numerous serious sit down interviews over the past few years. Martin Bashir also did them through Panorama if I remember correctly.
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
Pretty big expose of whistleblowing and cover up in the Sussex Hospitals tonight on Newsnight. This sort of investigation is much more useful than more talking heads.
Talking head stuff is absolutely the worst import from the US. It is rarely informative, mostly setup for clickbait arguments.
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Standard MO for any public service when asked to find savings - go straight for something they notice, and then parade your bleeding stumps publicly so nobody asks you to find any more savings ever again.
The thing is Newsnight has piss poor viewership these days. It really isn't the essential viewing it was 20 years ago when Paxman was Paxo'ing lying politicians every night. High profile politicians don't even feel the need to go on there anymore as it doesn't set the agenda in the way it used to.
Obviously the BBC could easily save £40-50 million by again cutting the shit show that is BBC Three from being over the air that has Talk TV levels of live viewership. Absolutely no need for it. If they want to fund edgy untested show for da yuff, just stick it on iPlayer.
And of course most of the public have no idea about how BBC Studios / Worldwide operates and that BBC owns UKTV, which in bring loads of revenue on top of licence fee (and have ads).
I agree that Newsnight isn't good compared to 15 or 20 years ago, but it's still one of the better programmes on BBC TV.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
She has already commented the cuts to Newsnight mean that interview could never be repeated
Calling BS....BBC have managed to do things like Schofield interview without it having to be Newsnight. Amol Rajan has got to do numerous serious sit down interviews over the past few years. Martin Bashir also did them through Panorama if I remember correctly.
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
Pretty big expose of whistleblowing and cover up in the Sussex Hospitals tonight on Newsnight. This sort of investigation is much more useful than more talking heads.
Talking head stuff is absolutely the worst import from the US. It is rarely informative, mostly setup for clickbait arguments.
I just dont understand how the BBC can get away with this. They spend insane millions on lightweight entertainment which another channel can do in spades rather than do the key public service thing with news and current affairs and factual stuff.
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Standard MO for any public service when asked to find savings - go straight for something they notice, and then parade your bleeding stumps publicly so nobody asks you to find any more savings ever again.
The thing is Newsnight has piss poor viewership these days. It really isn't the essential viewing it was 20 years ago when Paxman was Paxo'ing lying politicians every night. High profile politicians don't even feel the need to go on there anymore as it doesn't set the agenda in the way it used to.
Obviously the BBC could easily save £40-50 million by again cutting the shit show that is BBC Three from being over the air that has Talk TV levels of live viewership. Absolutely no need for it. If they want to fund edgy untested show for da yuff, just stick it on iPlayer.
And of course most of the public have no idea about how BBC Studios / Worldwide operates and that BBC owns UKTV, which in bring loads of revenue on top of licence fee (and have ads).
I agree that Newsnight isn't good compared to 15 or 20 years ago, but it's still one of the better programmes on BBC TV.
The public disagrees, down to less than 300k viewers.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
She has already commented the cuts to Newsnight mean that interview could never be repeated
Calling BS....BBC have managed to do things like Schofield interview without it having to be Newsnight. Amol Rajan has got to do numerous serious sit down interviews over the past few years. Martin Bashir also did them through Panorama if I remember correctly.
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
Pretty big expose of whistleblowing and cover up in the Sussex Hospitals tonight on Newsnight. This sort of investigation is much more useful than more talking heads.
Talking head stuff is absolutely the worst import from the US. It is rarely informative, mostly setup for clickbait arguments.
I just dont understand how the BBC can get away with this. They spend insane millions on lightweight entertainment which another channel can do in spades rather than do the key public service thing with news and current affairs and factual stuff.
The BBC has been like this from the start under Lord Reith. Its mission was always to Inform, Educate and Entertain.
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Standard MO for any public service when asked to find savings - go straight for something they notice, and then parade your bleeding stumps publicly so nobody asks you to find any more savings ever again.
The thing is Newsnight has piss poor viewership these days. It really isn't the essential viewing it was 20 years ago when Paxman was Paxo'ing lying politicians every night. High profile politicians don't even feel the need to go on there anymore as it doesn't set the agenda in the way it used to.
Obviously the BBC could easily save £40-50 million by again cutting the shit show that is BBC Three from being over the air that has Talk TV levels of live viewership. Absolutely no need for it. If they want to fund edgy untested show for da yuff, just stick it on iPlayer.
And of course most of the public have no idea about how BBC Studios / Worldwide operates and that BBC owns UKTV, which in bring loads of revenue on top of licence fee (and have ads).
I agree that Newsnight isn't good compared to 15 or 20 years ago, but it's still one of the better programmes on BBC TV.
The public disagrees, down to less than 300k viewers.
Thoughts tonight for one its journo stars, Liz MacKean who almost broke the Saville scandal if they had allowed her.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
She has already commented the cuts to Newsnight mean that interview could never be repeated
Calling BS....BBC have managed to do things like Schofield interview without it having to be Newsnight. Amol Rajan has got to do numerous serious sit down interviews over the past few years. Martin Bashir also did them through Panorama if I remember correctly.
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
Pretty big expose of whistleblowing and cover up in the Sussex Hospitals tonight on Newsnight. This sort of investigation is much more useful than more talking heads.
Talking head stuff is absolutely the worst import from the US. It is rarely informative, mostly setup for clickbait arguments.
Unfortunately, it's not only cheap, but it makes for compelling viewing for those who enjoy that sort of thing. It's roughly the business model for GB News etc.
It's clearly a good thing for us as a nation if shady dealings are investigated and exposed, but it's difficult, expensive and often pulls in lower audiences than two professional gobshites bickering for fifteen minutes. And whilst mega scandals and interviews might pass muster as freestanding programmes, a lot of the public service stuff proably needs the security and the labelling of a show like Newsnight to survive.
As with local (and increasingly, national) papers and radio, perhaps the great days of investigative journalism needed a quasi monoply to work in financial and audience terms.
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Standard MO for any public service when asked to find savings - go straight for something they notice, and then parade your bleeding stumps publicly so nobody asks you to find any more savings ever again.
The thing is Newsnight has piss poor viewership these days. It really isn't the essential viewing it was 20 years ago when Paxman was Paxo'ing lying politicians every night. High profile politicians don't even feel the need to go on there anymore as it doesn't set the agenda in the way it used to.
Obviously the BBC could easily save £40-50 million by again cutting the shit show that is BBC Three from being over the air that has Talk TV levels of live viewership. Absolutely no need for it. If they want to fund edgy untested show for da yuff, just stick it on iPlayer.
And of course most of the public have no idea about how BBC Studios / Worldwide operates and that BBC owns UKTV, which in bring loads of revenue on top of licence fee (and have ads).
I agree that Newsnight isn't good compared to 15 or 20 years ago, but it's still one of the better programmes on BBC TV.
The public disagrees, down to less than 300k viewers.
Newsnight was never that popular at any stage AFAIK, because serious news programmes never are. I'd be interested to know what its peak audience was.
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Standard MO for any public service when asked to find savings - go straight for something they notice, and then parade your bleeding stumps publicly so nobody asks you to find any more savings ever again.
The thing is Newsnight has piss poor viewership these days. It really isn't the essential viewing it was 20 years ago when Paxman was Paxo'ing lying politicians every night. High profile politicians don't even feel the need to go on there anymore as it doesn't set the agenda in the way it used to.
Obviously the BBC could easily save £40-50 million by again cutting the shit show that is BBC Three from being over the air that has Talk TV levels of live viewership. Absolutely no need for it. If they want to fund edgy untested show for da yuff, just stick it on iPlayer.
And of course most of the public have no idea about how BBC Studios / Worldwide operates and that BBC owns UKTV, which in bring loads of revenue on top of licence fee (and have ads).
I agree that Newsnight isn't good compared to 15 or 20 years ago, but it's still one of the better programmes on BBC TV.
The public disagrees, down to less than 300k viewers.
Newsnight was never that popular at any stage AFAIK, because serious news programmes never are. I'd be interested to know what its peak audience was.
It used to get million+ 10 years ago.
Edit - million on a good day, but your right not stellar, but it has been losing audience consistently since Paxman went. Now its 300k on a good day, sometimes as low as 150k.
10 years ago the Guardian were musing had Savile scandal done for Newsnight because they had a few episodes of 600k.
Have you posted the wrong video? That one's about rogue landlords who let out grossly substandard property for extortionate rents. Or do you have another agenda?
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
She has already commented the cuts to Newsnight mean that interview could never be repeated
Calling BS....BBC have managed to do things like Schofield interview without it having to be Newsnight. Amol Rajan has got to do numerous serious sit down interviews over the past few years. Martin Bashir also did them through Panorama if I remember correctly.
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
Pretty big expose of whistleblowing and cover up in the Sussex Hospitals tonight on Newsnight. This sort of investigation is much more useful than more talking heads.
Talking head stuff is absolutely the worst import from the US. It is rarely informative, mostly setup for clickbait arguments.
I just dont understand how the BBC can get away with this. They spend insane millions on lightweight entertainment which another channel can do in spades rather than do the key public service thing with news and current affairs and factual stuff.
The BBC has been like this from the start under Lord Reith. Its mission was always to Inform, Educate and Entertain.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
I don't disagree and we basically never have any long form interviews on MSM these days with politicians. Which I think is a a great shame and YouTube is now where you have to go to find intellectual debates of ideas.
But at the time, Newsnight got much high ratings and politicians felt the need to be on there to defend their message.
The point about Newsnight though isn't and never was ratings though, they weren't great except for big specials even in its supposed 90s/early 2000s heyday. It would get beaten by Channel 4 showing a film with some naughty moments. People have moaned about its ratings for at least two decades.
It's a flagship in-depth news show that was there to a) lead the news agenda by doing big scoops/deep dives that are given room to breathe, help feed the BBC's news division and are picked up elsewhere b) to have a viewership that's small but influential because it's either professionally or intensely personally switched on to politics.
It has shown it can still do that - Prince Andrew being an obvious example. But it's also done excellent work on NHS failings, police misbehaviour, visa scams, and so on. But the BBC don't want that anymore because like lots of the media, who have cut reporting to the bone in favour of comment and regurgitated clickbait, they see it as a thankless task in a world full of content that's cheaper to make. Take your 'intellectual debates' on YouTube. It's very cheap to put two articulate professors, or two blowhards with a podcast and a glorified blog in a studio and have them waffle on about their ideas about the story of the day. And they get their audience by narrowcasting to them.
On the otherhand, it's expensive and no one really notices - even when they're the ones to break or further a story - a team of reporters, producers, lawyers etc that produce the original reporting for the blowhards to talk about.
Sadly, they've given up the ghost and decided what we need is more Spiked writers engaging in verbal onanism alongside Owen Jones.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
She has already commented the cuts to Newsnight mean that interview could never be repeated
Calling BS....BBC have managed to do things like Schofield interview without it having to be Newsnight. Amol Rajan has got to do numerous serious sit down interviews over the past few years. Martin Bashir also did them through Panorama if I remember correctly.
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
Pretty big expose of whistleblowing and cover up in the Sussex Hospitals tonight on Newsnight. This sort of investigation is much more useful than more talking heads.
Talking head stuff is absolutely the worst import from the US. It is rarely informative, mostly setup for clickbait arguments.
Unfortunately, it's not only cheap, but it makes for compelling viewing for those who enjoy that sort of thing. It's roughly the business model for GB News etc.
It's clearly a good thing for us as a nation if shady dealings are investigated and exposed, but it's difficult, expensive and often pulls in lower audiences than two professional gobshites bickering for fifteen minutes. And whilst mega scandals and interviews might pass muster as freestanding programmes, a lot of the public service stuff proably needs the security and the labelling of a show like Newsnight to survive.
As with local (and increasingly, national) papers and radio, perhaps the great days of investigative journalism needed a quasi monoply to work in financial and audience terms.
The cutting of Panorama from an hour to half an hour was a terrible mistake. You can't show properly complex investigations in 30 mins.
I disagree that scandals and investigative journalism doesn't pull views. Coffeezilla on YouTube does great numbers. 400m views doing hard yard investigations (and a bit of clickbaity nonsense)...but the proper stuff does great.
Its like the argument long form programmes nobody watches em....except they do, Rogan waves with 100m viewers per week. Its just the BBC and ITV haven't moved with the times e.g. Louis Theroux is still there go to guy and his shtick its all a bit tidied now, especially as we know its all a huge act.
@trussliz Conservative leadership and the Anglo-American alliance are vital. I'm in Washington DC with @MPIainDS, @JackLopresti, Mark Francois and Lord Howard for talks with Republican counterparts.
Annette Dittert @annettedittert · 2h A disgrace. @BBCNewsnight was a flagship newsmagazine most European public broadcaster looked up to and often tried to copy. For decades it has set the agenda with brilliant investigations and a team of brilliant reporters. Hard to not see this as politically motivated.
Rwandan support for the UK’s flagship migration scheme is at risk because of continued delays to getting flights off the ground, ministers have been warned.
Senior diplomats have privately told the Foreign Office that Rwanda’s commitment to the scheme cannot be taken for granted. They fear that the longer the flights are delayed, the more questions will be asked by authorities in Kigali about the scheme’s sustainability.
Annette Dittert @annettedittert · 2h A disgrace. @BBCNewsnight was a flagship newsmagazine most European public broadcaster looked up to and often tried to copy. For decades it has set the agenda with brilliant investigations and a team of brilliant reporters. Hard to not see this as politically motivated.
Is exactly the response the BBC were looking for.
Its like when they talk about shutting BBC4 or 6 music, the 20 people who watch BBC4 live were outraged (but also people of power and influence).
@trussliz Conservative leadership and the Anglo-American alliance are vital. I'm in Washington DC with @MPIainDS, @JackLopresti, Mark Francois and Lord Howard for talks with Republican counterparts.
Talking to GOP about "defeating" authoritarian regimes? As they literally work day and night to elect the greatest threat to democracy in America since its founding?
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
I don't disagree and we basically never have any long form interviews on MSM these days with politicians. Which I think is a a great shame and YouTube is now where you have to go to find intellectual debates of ideas.
But at the time, Newsnight got much high ratings and politicians felt the need to be on there to defend their message.
The point about Newsnight though isn't and never was ratings though, they weren't great except for big specials even in its supposed 90s/early 2000s heyday. It would get beaten by Channel 4 showing a film with some naughty moments. People have moaned about its ratings for at least two decades.
It's a flagship in-depth news show that was there to a) lead the news agenda by doing big scoops/deep dives that are given room to breathe, help feed the BBC's news division and are picked up elsewhere b) to have a viewership that's small but influential because it's either professionally or intensely personally switched on to politics.
Sure it wasn't about getting 10 million viewers like Strictly, but the public aren't watching it in anywhere near the numbers they were before.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
She has already commented the cuts to Newsnight mean that interview could never be repeated
Calling BS....BBC have managed to do things like Schofield interview without it having to be Newsnight. Amol Rajan has got to do numerous serious sit down interviews over the past few years. Martin Bashir also did them through Panorama if I remember correctly.
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
Pretty big expose of whistleblowing and cover up in the Sussex Hospitals tonight on Newsnight. This sort of investigation is much more useful than more talking heads.
Talking head stuff is absolutely the worst import from the US. It is rarely informative, mostly setup for clickbait arguments.
I just dont understand how the BBC can get away with this. They spend insane millions on lightweight entertainment which another channel can do in spades rather than do the key public service thing with news and current affairs and factual stuff.
The BBC has been like this from the start under Lord Reith. Its mission was always to Inform, Educate and Entertain.
@trussliz Conservative leadership and the Anglo-American alliance are vital. I'm in Washington DC with @MPIainDS, @JackLopresti, Mark Francois and Lord Howard for talks with Republican counterparts.
Talking to GOP about "defeating" authoritarian regimes? As they literally work day and night to elect the greatest threat to democracy in America since its founding?
jeez I have read some shit in my time, but...
That may even eclipse the CPRE yesterday complaining about the housing crisis especially in rural areas.
@trussliz Conservative leadership and the Anglo-American alliance are vital. I'm in Washington DC with @MPIainDS, @JackLopresti, Mark Francois and Lord Howard for talks with Republican counterparts.
Talking to GOP about "defeating" authoritarian regimes? As they literally work day and night to elect the greatest threat to democracy in America since its founding?
jeez I have read some shit in my time, but...
That may even eclipse the CPRE yesterday complaining about the housing crisis especially in rural areas.
I missed that one.
I see they want "small-scale developments of genuinely affordable housing"
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
She has already commented the cuts to Newsnight mean that interview could never be repeated
Calling BS....BBC have managed to do things like Schofield interview without it having to be Newsnight. Amol Rajan has got to do numerous serious sit down interviews over the past few years. Martin Bashir also did them through Panorama if I remember correctly.
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
Pretty big expose of whistleblowing and cover up in the Sussex Hospitals tonight on Newsnight. This sort of investigation is much more useful than more talking heads.
Talking head stuff is absolutely the worst import from the US. It is rarely informative, mostly setup for clickbait arguments.
I just dont understand how the BBC can get away with this. They spend insane millions on lightweight entertainment which another channel can do in spades rather than do the key public service thing with news and current affairs and factual stuff.
The BBC has been like this from the start under Lord Reith. Its mission was always to Inform, Educate and Entertain.
No other channel existed when Reith said this.
True but barely relevant.
Yes it is. BBC can do stuff others dont. Newsnight is a classic example. There's 500 channels of advert and subscriber based "shit" as Pink Floyd once put it.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
She has already commented the cuts to Newsnight mean that interview could never be repeated
Calling BS....BBC have managed to do things like Schofield interview without it having to be Newsnight. Amol Rajan has got to do numerous serious sit down interviews over the past few years. Martin Bashir also did them through Panorama if I remember correctly.
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
Pretty big expose of whistleblowing and cover up in the Sussex Hospitals tonight on Newsnight. This sort of investigation is much more useful than more talking heads.
Talking head stuff is absolutely the worst import from the US. It is rarely informative, mostly setup for clickbait arguments.
I just dont understand how the BBC can get away with this. They spend insane millions on lightweight entertainment which another channel can do in spades rather than do the key public service thing with news and current affairs and factual stuff.
The BBC has been like this from the start under Lord Reith. Its mission was always to Inform, Educate and Entertain.
No other channel existed when Reith said this.
True but barely relevant.
Yes it is. BBC can do stuff others dont. Newsnight is a classic example. There's 500 channels of advert and subscriber based "shit" as Pink Floyd once put it.
The BBC does "do stuff others don't" but if its entire output consisted of highbrow programmes with under 100,000 viewers or listeners (and often a long way under) the clamour to ditch the licence would be overwhelming (and it is already quite loud).
@trussliz Conservative leadership and the Anglo-American alliance are vital. I'm in Washington DC with @MPIainDS, @JackLopresti, Mark Francois and Lord Howard for talks with Republican counterparts.
Maria Avdeeva @maria_avdv · 2h Confirmed: Major General Vladimir Zavadsky dead. He’ll be the seventh Russian general whose death is confirmed by Russia. The actual count is potentially the highest since WWII
Comments
Edit to add: nope, that doesn't work, because the Mekong cuts through Cambodia.
It really amazes me how bad this all is.
I need to do a Teams call with them at the best of times where they 'take control' of my browser and type in the oh-so-secure creadit-card details in front of my face. Because.... them's the rules. Or something.
Denmark between the kiel canal and the sea? Gambia…just a river going to the sea. The answer is I don’t think there’s another such example.
2/10 - try harder.
Last three -
First one asked me what phone I was using. I replied, Nokia 3310, best phone in the world! He hung up.
Next one asked me if I'd like the latest Samsung phone, 50% off, to which I replied "no, I'd much rather have the whole phone. Which part is missing, the top half or the bottom half?". He hung up.
Most recent one asked me if "my contract with EE had recently expired" to which I replied "what are you wearing?" I actually got a "what was that?!??" off the shocked scammer, to which I replied "what, do you have a problem with complete strangers asking you personal questions down the phone?" He hung up...
And 100% despite her writing to them every year kept the promotion current and so 100% did not over-pay her and over-contribute to her pension.
And 100% did not then try to sue her for fraud when they twigged years and years later.
Because they are 100% competent.
Edit: Just to be clear - they also did not 100% build a massive expensive sorting depot back to front which they 100% didn't deny then cause 100% increases in parcel delivery delays due to all the machinery being back to front relative to the loading bays. In case you were wondering.
Obviously the BBC could easily save £40-50 million by again cutting the shit show that is BBC Three from being over the air that has Talk TV levels of live viewership. Absolutely no need for it. If they want to fund edgy untested show for da yuff, just stick it on iPlayer.
And of course most of the public have no idea about how BBC Studios / Worldwide operates and that BBC owns UKTV, which in bring loads of revenue on top of licence fee (and have ads).
I’m very disappointed that the River Tiber doesn’t meet the Vatican as that would allow “from the river to the See”.
So it's bed for me. Night all.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Sadly for them - DAD was the leader of the local Hells Angels-alike.
Boy, did those lads accidentally keep falling in front of motorbikes for a few years. Over and over in fact.
But at the time, Newsnight got much high ratings and politicians felt the need to be on there to defend their message.
Same as what happens whenever the NHS decides it wants more public money - always wards and nurses threatened, not the massive layers of bureaucracy behind them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_accidents_in_the_United_Kingdom
One of the saddest was Shipton on Cherwell (Xmas eve, 1874). Not far from me is the grave of one of the victims. It still gives pause for thought, all those people going home to their families from far and wide, never to arrive.
Holland (as opposed to The Netherlands) is pretty much bounded by the Rhine–Meuse–Scheldt river system and the sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Very_Royal_Scandal
Another Christmassy crash was the landslip in Sonning Cutting (engineer: I. K. Brunel). Christmas Eve 1841. Led to Gladstone's Railways Act, apparently.
Politicians get seduced by science and technology. It's shiny and they keep getting told that they can trust the people building it because it will work this time. Then it doesn't. Rinse and repeat.
The NHS employs numbers commensurate with the worldwide employees of Macdonalds. And the whole thing is still a huge balls up at the best of times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzof-se9VKo
Senior diplomats have privately told the Foreign Office that Rwanda’s commitment to the scheme cannot be taken for granted. They fear that the longer the flights are delayed, the more questions will be asked by authorities in Kigali about the scheme’s sustainability.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rwanda-relations-pushed-to-limit-as-deportation-scheme-stalls-f0fx58mx7
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
Panorama is a piss poor programme these days, but they still seem to be able to send reporters all over the globe, but more often than not it is very weak content.
https://x.com/sadiqkhan/status/1729961031483510958
Died in 2017 sadly far too young.
It's clearly a good thing for us as a nation if shady dealings are investigated and exposed, but it's difficult, expensive and often pulls in lower audiences than two professional gobshites bickering for fifteen minutes. And whilst mega scandals and interviews might pass muster as freestanding programmes, a lot of the public service stuff proably needs the security and the labelling of a show like Newsnight to survive.
As with local (and increasingly, national) papers and radio, perhaps the great days of investigative journalism needed a quasi monoply to work in financial and audience terms.
Edit - million on a good day, but your right not stellar, but it has been losing audience consistently since Paxman went. Now its 300k on a good day, sometimes as low as 150k.
10 years ago the Guardian were musing had Savile scandal done for Newsnight because they had a few episodes of 600k.
Or do you have another agenda?
It's a flagship in-depth news show that was there to a) lead the news agenda by doing big scoops/deep dives that are given room to breathe, help feed the BBC's news division and are picked up elsewhere b) to have a viewership that's small but influential because it's either professionally or intensely personally switched on to politics.
It has shown it can still do that - Prince Andrew being an obvious example. But it's also done excellent work on NHS failings, police misbehaviour, visa scams, and so on. But the BBC don't want that anymore because like lots of the media, who have cut reporting to the bone in favour of comment and regurgitated clickbait, they see it as a thankless task in a world full of content that's cheaper to make. Take your 'intellectual debates' on YouTube. It's very cheap to put two articulate professors, or two blowhards with a podcast and a glorified blog in a studio and have them waffle on about their ideas about the story of the day. And they get their audience by narrowcasting to them.
On the otherhand, it's expensive and no one really notices - even when they're the ones to break or further a story - a team of reporters, producers, lawyers etc that produce the original reporting for the blowhards to talk about.
Sadly, they've given up the ghost and decided what we need is more Spiked writers engaging in verbal onanism alongside Owen Jones.
I disagree that scandals and investigative journalism doesn't pull views. Coffeezilla on YouTube does great numbers. 400m views doing hard yard investigations (and a bit of clickbaity nonsense)...but the proper stuff does great.
Its like the argument long form programmes nobody watches em....except they do, Rogan waves with 100m viewers per week. Its just the BBC and ITV haven't moved with the times e.g. Louis Theroux is still there go to guy and his shtick its all a bit tidied now, especially as we know its all a huge act.
Conservative leadership and the Anglo-American alliance are vital. I'm in Washington DC with @MPIainDS,
@JackLopresti, Mark Francois and Lord Howard for talks with Republican counterparts.
We must defeat the axis of authoritarian regimes threatening the free world.
https://x.com/trussliz/status/1729981806991024237?s=20
@annettedittert
·
2h
A disgrace.
@BBCNewsnight
was a flagship newsmagazine most European public broadcaster looked up to and often tried to copy. For decades it has set the agenda with brilliant investigations and a team of brilliant reporters.
Hard to not see this as politically motivated.
Its like when they talk about shutting BBC4 or 6 music, the 20 people who watch BBC4 live were outraged (but also people of power and influence).
Talking to GOP about "defeating" authoritarian regimes? As they literally work day and night to elect the greatest threat to democracy in America since its founding?
jeez I have read some shit in my time, but...
Very disappointing.
whoa — “go fuck yourself,” Elon Musk says to Bob Iger and others who pull advertising from X
at this point it’s almost as if he’s watching the old Iron Man movies and doing a reverse Tony Stark impression
https://twitter.com/jd_durkin/status/1729991850079990080
I see they want "small-scale developments of genuinely affordable housing"
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4331362-biden-or-bust-democrats-are-stuck-with-joe/
Yep.
@maria_avdv
·
2h
Confirmed: Major General Vladimir Zavadsky dead. He’ll be the seventh Russian general whose death is confirmed by Russia. The actual count is potentially the highest since WWII