What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
I never understood the purpose of announced inspections. Food hygiene don't inform restaurants they're paying a visit in a couple of days, they turn up kitted out and ready and announce themselves as doing the inspection right now, without warning. Whatever they see, they see, no time to change things and warp perspectives, but then its all done and dusted.
The exact date of inspection doesn't get much notice; typically lunchtime the day before. And if inspectors want to interrogate governors (part time, unpaid, often with day jobs of their own), it's hard to see how squeezing that timeframe more would work. But yes, it does make for a long anxious evening or two.
The other question is when a school is "in the window" and due for an inspection. If the plan is to look at every school reasonably regularly, then that implies an pattern. So after an inspection, it doesn't take Hercule Poirot to work out when the Inspector Calls again.
It would probably be better for schools and more useful for parents if inspections were more frequent and less showy, but that would need more inspectors- to look at every school every year, say. And you're smart enough to know why that's not happening.
Interrogating governors shouldn't be part of the inspection, that can be external to it, but the inspection should be based on a true day to day experience, not people with other day jobs.
The Directors of most restaurants, like the Governors of most schools, won't be present for an inspection but if the EHO have any follow-up questions for them that can be done separately, and not part of the inspection. Why can't OFSTED do the same?
OFSTED seem to be like VAR in football. In theory a reasonable idea, but doing things badly, they insist on doing everything their own way, learning nothing from others who do similar roles, and respected by nobody.
Andrew Neil makes a good point here - rsther than trying to smear other politicians, the Tories could earn a lot of brownie points with voters by paying out the sub masters in full immediately.
When you think of all the money wasted on PPE & furlough, it would not be that costly and could be the Black Swan they are looking for
Too much “business-as-usual” in Rishi Sunak’s remarks about the sub-postmasters this morning. He doesn’t get the scale of the national outrage. He should have announced Alan Johnson as head of new compensation agency, with all claims generously settled this year and bill sent to Post Office. Plus instructed government lawyers to resolve all miscarriages of justice this year too, with additional compensation. And encouraged NCA to pursue criminal charges against Post Office executives.
Sending the bill to the Post Office? It'd get lost in transit.
The bill should go to Fujitsu. Don't like it and we will start investigating your other contracts in more detail..
Why?
Yes their software was a failure and they should compensate their customer (the PO) for that.
But it wasn’t Fujitsu who prosecuted the SPMs and ruined lives
It was Fujitsu UK that lied about the infallibility Horizon, including about remote access. Without that the prosecutions couldn't have happened.
They are firmly in the frame. The problem is that the others believed them.
I’m not saying they are blameless. They are not.
But did they commit perjury? Or did they exaggerate to a customer?
The former should have criminal penalties. The latter commercial consequences.
They delivered software that couldn't do transactionality. For financial transactions.
If someone delivered cars that had a design of differential that meant they couldn't go round corners and people died, the manufacturer would get it in the neck.
I’m not an IT person like I think you are.
But that failing sounds pretty fundamental
So the PO should go after them for commercial failure
(In your analogy the PO is the car manufacturer and the SPM the dealers. Fujitsu is a parts manufacturer . It’s Ford that gets blamed not Vistion (?)
Yes it is a fundamental failure.
The horrible phrase "Not fit for purpose" is right here.
They sold faulty goods.
The dealers (PO) carried on selling the faulty cars, prosecuting people for the inability to drive round corners etc, after *they knew* the cars were faulty.
The manufacturer is liable *and* the PO is liable.
It wasn’t Fujitsu who prosecuted on faulty evidence. The primary liability to the SPMs lies with the PO.
The critical issue is surely whether Fujitsu fibbed in court or not.
Andrew Neil makes a good point here - rsther than trying to smear other politicians, the Tories could earn a lot of brownie points with voters by paying out the sub masters in full immediately.
When you think of all the money wasted on PPE & furlough, it would not be that costly and could be the Black Swan they are looking for
Too much “business-as-usual” in Rishi Sunak’s remarks about the sub-postmasters this morning. He doesn’t get the scale of the national outrage. He should have announced Alan Johnson as head of new compensation agency, with all claims generously settled this year and bill sent to Post Office. Plus instructed government lawyers to resolve all miscarriages of justice this year too, with additional compensation. And encouraged NCA to pursue criminal charges against Post Office executives.
Sending the bill to the Post Office? It'd get lost in transit.
The bill should go to Fujitsu. Don't like it and we will start investigating your other contracts in more detail..
Why?
Yes their software was a failure and they should compensate their customer (the PO) for that.
But it wasn’t Fujitsu who prosecuted the SPMs and ruined lives
It was Fujitsu UK that lied about the infallibility Horizon, including about remote access. Without that the prosecutions couldn't have happened.
They are firmly in the frame. The problem is that the others believed them.
I’m not saying they are blameless. They are not.
But did they commit perjury? Or did they exaggerate to a customer?
The former should have criminal penalties. The latter commercial consequences.
They delivered software that couldn't do transactionality. For financial transactions.
If someone delivered cars that had a design of differential that meant they couldn't go round corners and people died, the manufacturer would get it in the neck.
I’m not an IT person like I think you are.
But that failing sounds pretty fundamental
So the PO should go after them for commercial failure
(In your analogy the PO is the car manufacturer and the SPM the dealers. Fujitsu is a parts manufacturer . It’s Ford that gets blamed not Vistion (?)
Yes it is a fundamental failure.
The horrible phrase "Not fit for purpose" is right here.
They sold faulty goods.
The dealers (PO) carried on selling the faulty cars, prosecuting people for the inability to drive round corners etc, after *they knew* the cars were faulty.
The manufacturer is liable *and* the PO is liable.
It wasn’t Fujitsu who prosecuted on faulty evidence. The primary liability to the SPMs lies with the PO.
Fujitsu kept on bullshitting - including in sworn testimony.
And one might surmise, possibly garnered a great deal of ill-gotten gain along the way, with potential criminal as well as civil liability.
Wonder what media, etc. in Japan are saying? Anything?
The Mail on Sunday are beginning to notice Sir Keir’s Achilles heel.
“Starmer won the Labour leadership early in 2020 on an undiluted Corbynista platform which included all the major policies of Jeremy Corbyn's 2019 election manifesto (such as widespread nationalisation and abolition of university tuition fees), encapsulated in a ten-point plan.
In a BBC TV interview he assured me these weren't just promises, they were 'pledges' he was making to Labour members and the British people.
Every one, of course, has since been junked, most of them not long after he was elected leader.
For him now to rail against broken Tory promises and the 'political cynicism' that has engendered is rather like Satan setting his face against sin. It is simply not credible. If Starmer is our next prime minister — and I still regard that as the odds-on result come the election — then he will take power with the unique distinction of an opposition leader who has broken more promises and executed more U-turns out of power than most governments manage in office.”
Just finished the whole thing. Exceptionally good TV in terms of what it aimed to do: explain a horrible injustice, make you feel angry, tell the nation what happened
I reckon Davey is terminally damaged. Will struggle on but this now hangs around him. All the post office bigwigs are in danger of going to jail
On the upside this shows that - slowly, belatedly - British democracy and justice still kinda works. The 4th estate did its job. Journalists listened to a story and wrote it. Then tv came alone and shamed the powers that be (via a brilliant scriptwriter)
That’s something to cheer amidst what is still a pretty bleak tale. I apologise to all subpostmasters on PB for yawningly belittling this story
You owe me a drink or two when we meet.
You still have that visit to West Cumbria to do and the picnic on the beach I promised you.
I recently visited your beach. Some funny rules in the Gents...
And you didn't say hello?! How naughty of you.
I wouldn't know about the Gents, what with me being a woman and all. I'd have thought the urinals might be quite a convenient place to wash boots, what with them being nearer to the ground. Depends what is on the boots, I suppose.
Further up the coast there was a sign at a petrol state politely asking people not to turn up in their dressing gowns. When I asked the lady behind the counter, whether this was for real she said:
"Oh yes. We get men in their dressing gowns. We've seen it all."
"I do hope not!" I replied.
She laughed.
We have to make our own entertainment here, you know.
Here is the sign:
What about people who turn up with no attire at all? Is that permitted?
(Not asking for myself or anyone else, by the way!)
Given the weather here, we'd rush them to A&E. You don't want frozen corpses littering the patrol station forecourt.
In reality the chief culpability lies with Fujitsu for delivering faulty software, and Post Office management for pressing on with wilful persecution of subpostmasters.
I can’t really blame any politicians, save for those who failed to give a shit once the full scandal unravelled. Chief culprit there seems to be Kemi Badenoch.
But agree with Foxy above, that Davey owes a long-form explanation. He may already be too late.
Ah yes, the idea that we can't associate legal responsibility with those legally responsible. Because it would be unfair.
Why have ministers then?
In a deeper question - if ministers can't get this information from their departments, do we need to sack large chucks of the civil service?
There must be a number of Civil Servants with blood on their hands, but the chances of finding out who are close to zero.
As for Kemi Badenoch, she is emiting a deafening silence. And normally she's such a headline-grabber!
I think that as the responsible Minister she has to be very careful about what she says about this when there is allegedly an active police investigation and probable prosecutions.
She should, however, be doing more to ensure the outstanding appeals are dealt with as a priority and that the compensation scheme is operating as fast as possible.
It is unlikely the PO would have been able to procrastinate in the way it has without tacit support from the very top.
Interesting difference in tactics between Tories and Labour on post office.
Tories: we’ll get blamed by default so let’s go in feet first on Davey and try to get him scapegoated. That way we avoid the shrapnel.
Labour: shit, this stuff started under us. Let’s keep quiet as a church mouse and hope it dies away, because otherwise the Tories will try to scapegoat us.
The Tory scapegoating machine remains world beating. Inducing the same fear as trembling GOP congressmen have of Vladimir Putin,
I think you've completely misread the Labour position. They're quiet as a church mouse all the time, so them being quiet now is their usual MO and no different.
For the last two years Labour's policy under Starmer since the partygate story broke and they took poll leads has been "don't interrupt an enemy while they're making a mistake".
Starmer hasn't been some loudmouthed tactical genius. He's been an invisible nobody, telling his whole team to STFU so they can win by default.
This clip from his interview today is a beautiful example of saying nothing whilst pretending to say something
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
I never understood the purpose of announced inspections. Food hygiene don't inform restaurants they're paying a visit in a couple of days, they turn up kitted out and ready and announce themselves as doing the inspection right now, without warning. Whatever they see, they see, no time to change things and warp perspectives, but then its all done and dusted.
The exact date of inspection doesn't get much notice; typically lunchtime the day before. And if inspectors want to interrogate governors (part time, unpaid, often with day jobs of their own), it's hard to see how squeezing that timeframe more would work. But yes, it does make for a long anxious evening or two.
The other question is when a school is "in the window" and due for an inspection. If the plan is to look at every school reasonably regularly, then that implies an pattern. So after an inspection, it doesn't take Hercule Poirot to work out when the Inspector Calls again.
It would probably be better for schools and more useful for parents if inspections were more frequent and less showy, but that would need more inspectors- to look at every school every year, say. And you're smart enough to know why that's not happening.
The CQC do both announced and unannounced inspections. Each has a role.
The announced ones give time for documents to be prepared, for example looking at clinical incidents, waiting times, staff training reports, infection rates. These sorts of data are not likely to be to hand if an inspector randomly turns up on a unit, though this does have other utility.
The fact that CQC reports are often laughable doesn't invalidate the above.
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
I never understood the purpose of announced inspections. Food hygiene don't inform restaurants they're paying a visit in a couple of days, they turn up kitted out and ready and announce themselves as doing the inspection right now, without warning. Whatever they see, they see, no time to change things and warp perspectives, but then its all done and dusted.
Schools were complaining that unannounced inspections were unfair and disruptive
The Mail on Sunday are beginning to notice Sir Keir’s Achilles heel.
“Starmer won the Labour leadership early in 2020 on an undiluted Corbynista platform which included all the major policies of Jeremy Corbyn's 2019 election manifesto (such as widespread nationalisation and abolition of university tuition fees), encapsulated in a ten-point plan.
In a BBC TV interview he assured me these weren't just promises, they were 'pledges' he was making to Labour members and the British people.
Every one, of course, has since been junked, most of them not long after he was elected leader.
For him now to rail against broken Tory promises and the 'political cynicism' that has engendered is rather like Satan setting his face against sin. It is simply not credible. If Starmer is our next prime minister — and I still regard that as the odds-on result come the election — then he will take power with the unique distinction of an opposition leader who has broken more promises and executed more U-turns out of power than most governments manage in office.”
Andrew Neil makes a good point here - rsther than trying to smear other politicians, the Tories could earn a lot of brownie points with voters by paying out the sub masters in full immediately.
When you think of all the money wasted on PPE & furlough, it would not be that costly and could be the Black Swan they are looking for
Too much “business-as-usual” in Rishi Sunak’s remarks about the sub-postmasters this morning. He doesn’t get the scale of the national outrage. He should have announced Alan Johnson as head of new compensation agency, with all claims generously settled this year and bill sent to Post Office. Plus instructed government lawyers to resolve all miscarriages of justice this year too, with additional compensation. And encouraged NCA to pursue criminal charges against Post Office executives.
Sending the bill to the Post Office? It'd get lost in transit.
The bill should go to Fujitsu. Don't like it and we will start investigating your other contracts in more detail..
Why?
Yes their software was a failure and they should compensate their customer (the PO) for that.
But it wasn’t Fujitsu who prosecuted the SPMs and ruined lives
It was Fujitsu UK that lied about the infallibility Horizon, including about remote access. Without that the prosecutions couldn't have happened.
They are firmly in the frame. The problem is that the others believed them.
I’m not saying they are blameless. They are not.
But did they commit perjury? Or did they exaggerate to a customer?
The former should have criminal penalties. The latter commercial consequences.
They delivered software that couldn't do transactionality. For financial transactions.
If someone delivered cars that had a design of differential that meant they couldn't go round corners and people died, the manufacturer would get it in the neck.
I’m not an IT person like I think you are.
But that failing sounds pretty fundamental
So the PO should go after them for commercial failure
(In your analogy the PO is the car manufacturer and the SPM the dealers. Fujitsu is a parts manufacturer . It’s Ford that gets blamed not Vistion (?)
Yes it is a fundamental failure.
The horrible phrase "Not fit for purpose" is right here.
They sold faulty goods.
The dealers (PO) carried on selling the faulty cars, prosecuting people for the inability to drive round corners etc, after *they knew* the cars were faulty.
The manufacturer is liable *and* the PO is liable.
It wasn’t Fujitsu who prosecuted on faulty evidence. The primary liability to the SPMs lies with the PO.
Fujitsu kept on bullshitting - including in sworn testimony.
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
I never understood the purpose of announced inspections. Food hygiene don't inform restaurants they're paying a visit in a couple of days, they turn up kitted out and ready and announce themselves as doing the inspection right now, without warning. Whatever they see, they see, no time to change things and warp perspectives, but then its all done and dusted.
Schools were complaining that unannounced inspections were unfair and disruptive
When my daughter's state school was inspected the kids had nearly 2 weeks of "circle time" where they were trained to give the right answers to any questions the Inspectors were likely to ask. Not sure how it could be more disruptive than that nonsense.
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
I never understood the purpose of announced inspections. Food hygiene don't inform restaurants they're paying a visit in a couple of days, they turn up kitted out and ready and announce themselves as doing the inspection right now, without warning. Whatever they see, they see, no time to change things and warp perspectives, but then its all done and dusted.
Schools were complaining that unannounced inspections were unfair and disruptive
When my daughter's state school was inspected the kids had nearly 2 weeks of "circle time" where they were trained to give the right answers to any questions the Inspectors were likely to ask. Not sure how it could be more disruptive than that nonsense.
Makes a mockery of the entire process.
But also means that schools effectively feel compelled to do the same, as if others are doing that but you don't, then you stand out as the one with pupils giving the "wrong" answers.
If there's an honest on the day snapshot, then the schools not playing the game don't stand out.
The Mail on Sunday are beginning to notice Sir Keir’s Achilles heel.
“Starmer won the Labour leadership early in 2020 on an undiluted Corbynista platform which included all the major policies of Jeremy Corbyn's 2019 election manifesto (such as widespread nationalisation and abolition of university tuition fees), encapsulated in a ten-point plan.
In a BBC TV interview he assured me these weren't just promises, they were 'pledges' he was making to Labour members and the British people.
Every one, of course, has since been junked, most of them not long after he was elected leader.
For him now to rail against broken Tory promises and the 'political cynicism' that has engendered is rather like Satan setting his face against sin. It is simply not credible. If Starmer is our next prime minister — and I still regard that as the odds-on result come the election — then he will take power with the unique distinction of an opposition leader who has broken more promises and executed more U-turns out of power than most governments manage in office.”
Whoever is involved there are always two views about this fairly universal phenomenon, which in the case of Starmer was written up in detail and admiringly by the Economist a few months ago.
Those who support where he currently is will draw no attention to it and ascribe it to political reality. Those who don't (the DM etc) will draw attention to the fact that successful politicians appear sincere but are in fact in perpetual zigzag.
Starmer: totally compromised but going to be (OK) PM; Rory: principled but totally outside the corridors of power.
Politics is a dirty game.
Rebecca Long-Bailey was the Corbyn continuity candidate. Starmer was the 'change to win' choice.
Starmer was a Corbyn continuity with a bit of change candidate.
Lisa Nandy was the 'change to win' candidate.
Of course Starmer has all the integrity of Boris Johnson so having been a loyal member of Corbyn's cabinet during the racism of 2019, and the having had a Corbyn continuity manifesto in 2020, he then dumped the Corbynistas as soon as he had his hands on the wheel and had an opportunity to do so.
Which we get regularly told by Starmer fans is perfectly reasonable because had he not remained in Corbyn's cabinet and not lied to the Corbynistas in 2020 then he wouldn't have won the election and winning elections trumps integrity apparently.
Given the current Labour poll lead and Starmer dumping of the Corbynites, it is safe to say he was the real 'change to win' candidate
Though that wasn't what he was presenting himself as during the election, or how he campaigned. It was pure 'bait and switch'.
Which now they're winning and now Boris is gone, suddenly a lot of Labour fans are a lot more concerned with winning, and a lot less concerned with such piddly things like honesty, integrity, lying and so on.
There's some revisionism here. Starmer was more 'change and unite'. If you looked at his campaign there was always stuff Corbynites were going to be uncomfortable with, just as there were some olive branches.
If you had a clear-eyed view of the far-left they were always going to be up in arms about him - as they were never going to be able to unite around anything that deviated from their fantasies. So of course any deviation - which will happen over a leadership was a grand betrayal. Simply sticking to his pledge on antisemitism and showing zero tolerance on it was also a grand betrayal.
Personally, at the time, I thought Starmer knew Labour had to change but lacked the guts to take them on fully. Happily he has been. Though a lot of credit must go to the far left themselves for forcing his hand by being appalling.
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
I never understood the purpose of announced inspections. Food hygiene don't inform restaurants they're paying a visit in a couple of days, they turn up kitted out and ready and announce themselves as doing the inspection right now, without warning. Whatever they see, they see, no time to change things and warp perspectives, but then its all done and dusted.
The exact date of inspection doesn't get much notice; typically lunchtime the day before. And if inspectors want to interrogate governors (part time, unpaid, often with day jobs of their own), it's hard to see how squeezing that timeframe more would work. But yes, it does make for a long anxious evening or two.
The other question is when a school is "in the window" and due for an inspection. If the plan is to look at every school reasonably regularly, then that implies an pattern. So after an inspection, it doesn't take Hercule Poirot to work out when the Inspector Calls again.
It would probably be better for schools and more useful for parents if inspections were more frequent and less showy, but that would need more inspectors- to look at every school every year, say. And you're smart enough to know why that's not happening.
The CQC do both announced and unannounced inspections. Each has a role.
The announced ones give time for documents to be prepared, for example looking at clinical incidents, waiting times, staff training reports, infection rates. These sorts of data are not likely to be to hand if an inspector randomly turns up on a unit, though this does have other utility.
The fact that CQC reports are often laughable doesn't invalidate the above.
“clinical incidents, waiting times, staff training reports, infection rates” sound like the kind of reports on operations that an organisation should be reporting anyway, up the chain, on a regular basis.
Torsten Bell @TorstenBell · 8h In the mid-1960s 12% of what Brits spent (excluding housing) went on alcohol and tobacco. These days it's just 3 per cent.
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
I never understood the purpose of announced inspections. Food hygiene don't inform restaurants they're paying a visit in a couple of days, they turn up kitted out and ready and announce themselves as doing the inspection right now, without warning. Whatever they see, they see, no time to change things and warp perspectives, but then its all done and dusted.
Schools were complaining that unannounced inspections were unfair and disruptive
When my daughter's state school was inspected the kids had nearly 2 weeks of "circle time" where they were trained to give the right answers to any questions the Inspectors were likely to ask. Not sure how it could be more disruptive than that nonsense.
When I was at Uni in the 90s, one classmate made fairly good money by taking disruptive children on trips to things like the zoo. Some kind of local authority funded program. Small groups - 3-5 at a time IIRC.
Often at quite short notice.
He said that some schools were quite frank that they were about to be inspected and wanted some little darlings out of the way.
The Mail on Sunday are beginning to notice Sir Keir’s Achilles heel.
“Starmer won the Labour leadership early in 2020 on an undiluted Corbynista platform which included all the major policies of Jeremy Corbyn's 2019 election manifesto (such as widespread nationalisation and abolition of university tuition fees), encapsulated in a ten-point plan.
In a BBC TV interview he assured me these weren't just promises, they were 'pledges' he was making to Labour members and the British people.
Every one, of course, has since been junked, most of them not long after he was elected leader.
For him now to rail against broken Tory promises and the 'political cynicism' that has engendered is rather like Satan setting his face against sin. It is simply not credible. If Starmer is our next prime minister — and I still regard that as the odds-on result come the election — then he will take power with the unique distinction of an opposition leader who has broken more promises and executed more U-turns out of power than most governments manage in office.”
I'm not convinced Starmer being insufficiently Corbynista is the big political problem Andrew Neil thinks it is
It isn’t being insufficiently Corbynista that’s the problem, it’s that he always goes back on what he says
That potentially could be a problem for Starmer but not if he goes in a direction that people think is sensible. Also is Starmer perceived as being uniquely shifty in a low trust environment? Do people trust the Conservatives to keep their word, in a good way? eg What happened to Sunak's pledges from just last year? These are actual performance indicators that he said he would expect the British people to hold him to account for, and which somehow don't seem to matter now he hasn't met them.
It is said there are only two basic modes of political campaigning: "Time for a change" and "Don't let the other lot mess things up." The substantive argument against Starmer is that he is not expected to change things as much as people would like. The issue isn't that he won't keep his word; it's that he's not promising enough in the first place. But people won't vote Conservative in preference, because at least some change is better than none, given how much that party has messed things up.
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
I never understood the purpose of announced inspections. Food hygiene don't inform restaurants they're paying a visit in a couple of days, they turn up kitted out and ready and announce themselves as doing the inspection right now, without warning. Whatever they see, they see, no time to change things and warp perspectives, but then its all done and dusted.
Schools were complaining that unannounced inspections were unfair and disruptive
When my daughter's state school was inspected the kids had nearly 2 weeks of "circle time" where they were trained to give the right answers to any questions the Inspectors were likely to ask. Not sure how it could be more disruptive than that nonsense.
Makes a mockery of the entire process.
But also means that schools effectively feel compelled to do the same, as if others are doing that but you don't, then you stand out as the one with pupils giving the "wrong" answers.
If there's an honest on the day snapshot, then the schools not playing the game don't stand out.
An old, old problem. See the origin of “Gundecking”
Andrew Neil makes a good point here - rsther than trying to smear other politicians, the Tories could earn a lot of brownie points with voters by paying out the sub masters in full immediately.
When you think of all the money wasted on PPE & furlough, it would not be that costly and could be the Black Swan they are looking for
Too much “business-as-usual” in Rishi Sunak’s remarks about the sub-postmasters this morning. He doesn’t get the scale of the national outrage. He should have announced Alan Johnson as head of new compensation agency, with all claims generously settled this year and bill sent to Post Office. Plus instructed government lawyers to resolve all miscarriages of justice this year too, with additional compensation. And encouraged NCA to pursue criminal charges against Post Office executives.
Sending the bill to the Post Office? It'd get lost in transit.
The bill should go to Fujitsu. Don't like it and we will start investigating your other contracts in more detail..
Why?
Yes their software was a failure and they should compensate their customer (the PO) for that.
But it wasn’t Fujitsu who prosecuted the SPMs and ruined lives
It was Fujitsu UK that lied about the infallibility Horizon, including about remote access. Without that the prosecutions couldn't have happened.
They are firmly in the frame. The problem is that the others believed them.
Fujitsu is a very large, international company. Even Fujitsu UK is large. I’m not convinced they should *all* be damned for the failures of some. Collective punishment is wrong.
Not for a corporate entity it isn't.
They won't learn any lessons if they can blame a subsidiary or minor part of their organisation.
Andrew Neil makes a good point here - rsther than trying to smear other politicians, the Tories could earn a lot of brownie points with voters by paying out the sub masters in full immediately.
When you think of all the money wasted on PPE & furlough, it would not be that costly and could be the Black Swan they are looking for
Too much “business-as-usual” in Rishi Sunak’s remarks about the sub-postmasters this morning. He doesn’t get the scale of the national outrage. He should have announced Alan Johnson as head of new compensation agency, with all claims generously settled this year and bill sent to Post Office. Plus instructed government lawyers to resolve all miscarriages of justice this year too, with additional compensation. And encouraged NCA to pursue criminal charges against Post Office executives.
Sending the bill to the Post Office? It'd get lost in transit.
The bill should go to Fujitsu. Don't like it and we will start investigating your other contracts in more detail..
Why?
Yes their software was a failure and they should compensate their customer (the PO) for that.
But it wasn’t Fujitsu who prosecuted the SPMs and ruined lives
It was Fujitsu UK that lied about the infallibility Horizon, including about remote access. Without that the prosecutions couldn't have happened.
They are firmly in the frame. The problem is that the others believed them.
I’m not saying they are blameless. They are not.
But did they commit perjury? Or did they exaggerate to a customer?
The former should have criminal penalties. The latter commercial consequences.
They delivered software that couldn't do transactionality. For financial transactions.
If someone delivered cars that had a design of differential that meant they couldn't go round corners and people died, the manufacturer would get it in the neck.
I’m not an IT person like I think you are.
But that failing sounds pretty fundamental
So the PO should go after them for commercial failure
(In your analogy the PO is the car manufacturer and the SPM the dealers. Fujitsu is a parts manufacturer . It’s Ford that gets blamed not Vistion (?)
Yes it is a fundamental failure.
The horrible phrase "Not fit for purpose" is right here.
They sold faulty goods.
The dealers (PO) carried on selling the faulty cars, prosecuting people for the inability to drive round corners etc, after *they knew* the cars were faulty.
The manufacturer is liable *and* the PO is liable.
It wasn’t Fujitsu who prosecuted on faulty evidence. The primary liability to the SPMs lies with the PO.
The critical issue is surely whether Fujitsu fibbed in court or not.
Andrew Neil makes a good point here - rsther than trying to smear other politicians, the Tories could earn a lot of brownie points with voters by paying out the sub masters in full immediately.
When you think of all the money wasted on PPE & furlough, it would not be that costly and could be the Black Swan they are looking for
Too much “business-as-usual” in Rishi Sunak’s remarks about the sub-postmasters this morning. He doesn’t get the scale of the national outrage. He should have announced Alan Johnson as head of new compensation agency, with all claims generously settled this year and bill sent to Post Office. Plus instructed government lawyers to resolve all miscarriages of justice this year too, with additional compensation. And encouraged NCA to pursue criminal charges against Post Office executives.
Sending the bill to the Post Office? It'd get lost in transit.
The bill should go to Fujitsu. Don't like it and we will start investigating your other contracts in more detail..
Why?
Yes their software was a failure and they should compensate their customer (the PO) for that.
But it wasn’t Fujitsu who prosecuted the SPMs and ruined lives
It was Fujitsu UK that lied about the infallibility Horizon, including about remote access. Without that the prosecutions couldn't have happened.
They are firmly in the frame. The problem is that the others believed them.
I’m not saying they are blameless. They are not.
But did they commit perjury? Or did they exaggerate to a customer?
The former should have criminal penalties. The latter commercial consequences.
They delivered software that couldn't do transactionality. For financial transactions.
If someone delivered cars that had a design of differential that meant they couldn't go round corners and people died, the manufacturer would get it in the neck.
I’m not an IT person like I think you are.
But that failing sounds pretty fundamental
So the PO should go after them for commercial failure
(In your analogy the PO is the car manufacturer and the SPM the dealers. Fujitsu is a parts manufacturer . It’s Ford that gets blamed not Vistion (?)
Yes it is a fundamental failure.
The horrible phrase "Not fit for purpose" is right here.
They sold faulty goods.
The dealers (PO) carried on selling the faulty cars, prosecuting people for the inability to drive round corners etc, after *they knew* the cars were faulty.
The manufacturer is liable *and* the PO is liable.
It wasn’t Fujitsu who prosecuted on faulty evidence. The primary liability to the SPMs lies with the PO.
Fujitsu kept on bullshitting - including in sworn testimony.
And one might surmise, possibly garnered a great deal of ill-gotten gain along the way, with potential criminal as well as civil liability.
Wonder what media, etc. in Japan are saying? Anything?
It is being reported a bit, but it seems more like as foreign/business news. This is Newsweek Japan, for instance: https://www.newsweekjapan.jp/kimura/2023/03/post-210_1.php which leads off the story with this being big news in the UK media. Among other things it also points out that Horizon was done by ICL and is only under Fujitsu because they bought ICL entirely in 1998, so it's more "Fujitsu UK might have screwed up, but not clear that the parent company bears any responsibility". (They quote the Second Sight guy to that effect.)
BBC Japan has stories on it too, of course, but other than that and the Newsweek article I didn't find much. I didn't find anything from the major national papers (Yomiuri, Asahi, etc).
Boris was strong enough to fire Rishi at any time. It's not as though he was some party grandee with a powerbase of his own when Boris brought him in to replace Javid. PMs often clash with their Chancellors, but we all know who is in charge.
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
I never understood the purpose of announced inspections. Food hygiene don't inform restaurants they're paying a visit in a couple of days, they turn up kitted out and ready and announce themselves as doing the inspection right now, without warning. Whatever they see, they see, no time to change things and warp perspectives, but then its all done and dusted.
Schools were complaining that unannounced inspections were unfair and disruptive
No. School MANAGEMENT were complaining. I have no issue whatsoever with anyone turning up unannounced to see what I am doing. But. What I do is unconventional. Long term. And painfully slow. What I do is build relationships with some of the most challenging kids over a school year. I get results. Our rates of attendance are phenomenal. They actually like to be with us. A day. Or a week observation doesn't cut it.
Andrew Neil makes a good point here - rsther than trying to smear other politicians, the Tories could earn a lot of brownie points with voters by paying out the sub masters in full immediately.
When you think of all the money wasted on PPE & furlough, it would not be that costly and could be the Black Swan they are looking for
Too much “business-as-usual” in Rishi Sunak’s remarks about the sub-postmasters this morning. He doesn’t get the scale of the national outrage. He should have announced Alan Johnson as head of new compensation agency, with all claims generously settled this year and bill sent to Post Office. Plus instructed government lawyers to resolve all miscarriages of justice this year too, with additional compensation. And encouraged NCA to pursue criminal charges against Post Office executives.
Sending the bill to the Post Office? It'd get lost in transit.
The bill should go to Fujitsu. Don't like it and we will start investigating your other contracts in more detail..
Why?
Yes their software was a failure and they should compensate their customer (the PO) for that.
But it wasn’t Fujitsu who prosecuted the SPMs and ruined lives
It was Fujitsu UK that lied about the infallibility Horizon, including about remote access. Without that the prosecutions couldn't have happened.
They are firmly in the frame. The problem is that the others believed them.
Fujitsu is a very large, international company. Even Fujitsu UK is large. I’m not convinced they should *all* be damned for the failures of some. Collective punishment is wrong.
Not for a corporate entity it isn't.
They won't learn any lessons if they can blame a subsidiary or minor part of their organisation.
There is a tradition that submarines when new or after a major overhaul, go to sea for trials with a number of those responsible for the work (including management). This tends to focus minds.
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
Some bloke turns up and wants to wander around? No ID (OFSTED inspectors refuse to show them, or do I misremember)? No safeguarding training for the pupils' protection? Hell, not safeguarding training *for Sir and Miss*'s safety for that matter? Any school letting them in gets an instant FAIL, surely.
Why can't they show ID?
That's what the EHO do and that seems to work.
We don't get the same scandals with the EHO and food safety reports as we do with OFSTED and school reports, why is that?
How is anyone supposed to recognise ID? Especially if they've never seen it before.
If a bloke turned up on my doorstep flashing a so-called warrant card how am I supposed to agree he's really a copper rather than a burglar? Even I could cobble together a piece of laminated paper with the local plod's logo, his Majesty's royal crest and my photo in the middle. And, in a reassuring script font, the constabulary's mission statement which, if memory serves, is 'Making Warwickshire Slightly Safer'.
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
I never understood the purpose of announced inspections. Food hygiene don't inform restaurants they're paying a visit in a couple of days, they turn up kitted out and ready and announce themselves as doing the inspection right now, without warning. Whatever they see, they see, no time to change things and warp perspectives, but then its all done and dusted.
Schools were complaining that unannounced inspections were unfair and disruptive
When my daughter's state school was inspected the kids had nearly 2 weeks of "circle time" where they were trained to give the right answers to any questions the Inspectors were likely to ask. Not sure how it could be more disruptive than that nonsense.
When I was at Uni in the 90s, one classmate made fairly good money by taking disruptive children on trips to things like the zoo. Some kind of local authority funded program. Small groups - 3-5 at a time IIRC.
Often at quite short notice.
He said that some schools were quite frank that they were about to be inspected and wanted some little darlings out of the way.
They want my kids out when it's OFSTED time. I'd like them to be there. Last time they came to see us, to the horror of the SLT. Fortunately, they actually asked the children if their needs were being met. So I'm still in a job, somehow.
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
Some bloke turns up and wants to wander around? No ID (OFSTED inspectors refuse to show them, or do I misremember)? No safeguarding training for the pupils' protection? Hell, not safeguarding training *for Sir and Miss*'s safety for that matter? Any school letting them in gets an instant FAIL, surely.
Why can't they show ID?
That's what the EHO do and that seems to work.
We don't get the same scandals with the EHO and food safety reports as we do with OFSTED and school reports, why is that?
It’s not political. Don’t forget the unions hate OFSTED
Two points on Ofsted: not in defence, but to separate fact from fiction.
1. It's a complete myth that inspectors don't have to carry, and show, ID. It's photo ID, and there's a phone number on it inviting anybody who is suspicious of an inspector's bona fides to ring and check.
2. Too many school leaders contribute to the 'culture of fear' instilled by Ofsted by obsessively focusing on preparing for Ofsted. and instilling fear in their teachers, rather than getting on with the day job. In reality, really good schools should relax because they have nothing to fear from inspection.
Torsten Bell @TorstenBell · 8h In the mid-1960s 12% of what Brits spent (excluding housing) went on alcohol and tobacco. These days it's just 3 per cent.
We can help remedy that by taxing alcohol and tobacco far more....
He does have questions to answer. He should answer them.
But this all looks like a witch hunt now to displace from various Fujitsu and Post Office execs (who are annoyingly faceless and or subject to judicial process), civil servants (also faceless), and Tory apparatchiks.
Two points on Ofsted: not in defence, but to separate fact from fiction.
1. It's a complete myth that inspectors don't have to carry, and show, ID. It's photo ID, and there's a phone number on it inviting anybody who is suspicious of an inspector's bona fides to ring and check.
2. Too many school leaders contribute to the 'culture of fear' instilled by Ofsted by obsessively focusing on preparing for Ofsted. and instilling fear in their teachers, rather than getting on with the day job. In reality, really good schools should relax because they have nothing to fear from inspection.
Er ... who would believe that that was the correct phone number? In all seriousness, using the phone number the potential fraudster gives you is never a good idea. You'd need to look it up independently - so slightly startling that OFSTED behave basically like scammers and criminals.
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
I never understood the purpose of announced inspections. Food hygiene don't inform restaurants they're paying a visit in a couple of days, they turn up kitted out and ready and announce themselves as doing the inspection right now, without warning. Whatever they see, they see, no time to change things and warp perspectives, but then its all done and dusted.
Schools were complaining that unannounced inspections were unfair and disruptive
When my daughter's state school was inspected the kids had nearly 2 weeks of "circle time" where they were trained to give the right answers to any questions the Inspectors were likely to ask. Not sure how it could be more disruptive than that nonsense.
When I was at Uni in the 90s, one classmate made fairly good money by taking disruptive children on trips to things like the zoo. Some kind of local authority funded program. Small groups - 3-5 at a time IIRC.
Often at quite short notice.
He said that some schools were quite frank that they were about to be inspected and wanted some little darlings out of the way.
They want my kids out when it's OFSTED time. I'd like them to be there. Last time they came to see us, to the horror of the SLT. Fortunately, they actually asked the children if their needs were being met. So I'm still in a job, somehow.
You are the early 21st century version of early 20th (and 19th) century coal miner hacking away at the bowels of the earth - an essential worker treated like crap, or worse.
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
Some bloke turns up and wants to wander around? No ID (OFSTED inspectors refuse to show them, or do I misremember)? No safeguarding training for the pupils' protection? Hell, not safeguarding training *for Sir and Miss*'s safety for that matter? Any school letting them in gets an instant FAIL, surely.
Why can't they show ID?
That's what the EHO do and that seems to work.
We don't get the same scandals with the EHO and food safety reports as we do with OFSTED and school reports, why is that?
How is anyone supposed to recognise ID? Especially if they've never seen it before.
If a bloke turned up on my doorstep flashing a so-called warrant card how am I supposed to agree he's really a copper rather than a burglar? Even I could cobble together a piece of laminated paper with the local plod's logo, his Majesty's royal crest and my photo in the middle. And, in a reassuring script font, the constabulary's mission statement which, if memory serves, is 'Making Warwickshire Slightly Safer'.
You forgot your mate Bill's phone number, labelled as Warwickshire Constabulary Public Reeassurance Line.
Two points on Ofsted: not in defence, but to separate fact from fiction.
1. It's a complete myth that inspectors don't have to carry, and show, ID. It's photo ID, and there's a phone number on it inviting anybody who is suspicious of an inspector's bona fides to ring and check.
2. Too many school leaders contribute to the 'culture of fear' instilled by Ofsted by obsessively focusing on preparing for Ofsted. and instilling fear in their teachers, rather than getting on with the day job. In reality, really good schools should relax because they have nothing to fear from inspection.
Er ... who would believe that that was the correct phone number? In all seriousness, using the phone number the potential fraudster gives you is never a good idea. You'd need to look it up independently - so slightly startling that OFSTED behave basically like scammers and criminals.
I'm not aware of any scammers or criminals turning up at a school reception pretending to be inspectors - it's unlikely to be lucrative - but doubtless it's happened. Nevertheless, it's not hard to check. The school will have been sent a list of inspectors' names etc. in advance of the big day.
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
I’m a way. There’s a connection here between this Post Office scandal, the Ofsted inspections issue, and even the failures in naval recruitment,
It’s the corporatisation or privatisation of public services, and the failure of government to take responsibility.
Yes. Also the depoliticisation of decision making, the worship of the managerial and modern (by people who don't really understand technology), the denigration of experience and tradition in favour of dubious 'expertise' and spurious 'best practice'.
Two points on Ofsted: not in defence, but to separate fact from fiction.
1. It's a complete myth that inspectors don't have to carry, and show, ID. It's photo ID, and there's a phone number on it inviting anybody who is suspicious of an inspector's bona fides to ring and check.
2. Too many school leaders contribute to the 'culture of fear' instilled by Ofsted by obsessively focusing on preparing for Ofsted. and instilling fear in their teachers, rather than getting on with the day job. In reality, really good schools should relax because they have nothing to fear from inspection.
Er ... who would believe that that was the correct phone number? In all seriousness, using the phone number the potential fraudster gives you is never a good idea. You'd need to look it up independently - so slightly startling that OFSTED behave basically like scammers and criminals.
I'm not aware of any scammers or criminals turning up at a school reception pretending to be inspectors - it's unlikely to be lucrative - but doubtless it's happened. Nevertheless, it's not hard to check. The school will have been sent a list of inspectors' names etc. in advance of the big day.
Hmm, sure, but I got a bit confused as just now we were discussing the concept of no-warning inspections, which is trickier from that point of view. Interesting comments, though!
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
Some bloke turns up and wants to wander around? No ID (OFSTED inspectors refuse to show them, or do I misremember)? No safeguarding training for the pupils' protection? Hell, not safeguarding training *for Sir and Miss*'s safety for that matter? Any school letting them in gets an instant FAIL, surely.
Why can't they show ID?
That's what the EHO do and that seems to work.
We don't get the same scandals with the EHO and food safety reports as we do with OFSTED and school reports, why is that?
How is anyone supposed to recognise ID? Especially if they've never seen it before.
If a bloke turned up on my doorstep flashing a so-called warrant card how am I supposed to agree he's really a copper rather than a burglar? Even I could cobble together a piece of laminated paper with the local plod's logo, his Majesty's royal crest and my photo in the middle. And, in a reassuring script font, the constabulary's mission statement which, if memory serves, is 'Making Warwickshire Slightly Safer'.
You forgot your mate Bill's phone number, labelled as Warwickshire Constabulary Public Reeassurance Line.
Reminds me of a conversation I had with a DC last time a flat was burgled in my block.
"Did you hear anything suspicious on Wednesday evening around 6pm?"
...
"I think I might have said I heard something suspicious on Wednesday evening around 6pm, but now I'm not sure if you've just put that into my head"
Torsten Bell @TorstenBell · 8h In the mid-1960s 12% of what Brits spent (excluding housing) went on alcohol and tobacco. These days it's just 3 per cent.
We can help remedy that by taxing alcohol and tobacco far more....
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
Some bloke turns up and wants to wander around? No ID (OFSTED inspectors refuse to show them, or do I misremember)? No safeguarding training for the pupils' protection? Hell, not safeguarding training *for Sir and Miss*'s safety for that matter? Any school letting them in gets an instant FAIL, surely.
Why can't they show ID?
That's what the EHO do and that seems to work.
We don't get the same scandals with the EHO and food safety reports as we do with OFSTED and school reports, why is that?
How is anyone supposed to recognise ID? Especially if they've never seen it before.
If a bloke turned up on my doorstep flashing a so-called warrant card how am I supposed to agree he's really a copper rather than a burglar? Even I could cobble together a piece of laminated paper with the local plod's logo, his Majesty's royal crest and my photo in the middle. And, in a reassuring script font, the constabulary's mission statement which, if memory serves, is 'Making Warwickshire Slightly Safer'.
You forgot your mate Bill's phone number, labelled as Warwickshire Constabulary Public Reeassurance Line.
Shirley, the test is the check for the motto - "For The Greater Good"
The Mail on Sunday are beginning to notice Sir Keir’s Achilles heel.
“Starmer won the Labour leadership early in 2020 on an undiluted Corbynista platform which included all the major policies of Jeremy Corbyn's 2019 election manifesto (such as widespread nationalisation and abolition of university tuition fees), encapsulated in a ten-point plan.
In a BBC TV interview he assured me these weren't just promises, they were 'pledges' he was making to Labour members and the British people.
Every one, of course, has since been junked, most of them not long after he was elected leader.
For him now to rail against broken Tory promises and the 'political cynicism' that has engendered is rather like Satan setting his face against sin. It is simply not credible. If Starmer is our next prime minister — and I still regard that as the odds-on result come the election — then he will take power with the unique distinction of an opposition leader who has broken more promises and executed more U-turns out of power than most governments manage in office.”
I'm not convinced Starmer being insufficiently Corbynista is the big political problem Andrew Neil thinks it is
It isn’t being insufficiently Corbynista that’s the problem, it’s that he always goes back on what he says
That potentially could be a problem for Starmer but not if he goes in a direction that people think is sensible. Also is Starmer perceived as being uniquely shifty in a low trust environment? Do people trust the Conservatives to keep their word, in a good way? eg What happened to Sunak's pledges from just last year? These are actual performance indicators that he said he would expect the British people to hold him to account for, and which somehow don't seem to matter now he hasn't met them.
It is said there are only two basic modes of political campaigning: "Time for a change" and "Don't let the other lot mess things up." The substantive argument against Starmer is that he is not expected to change things as much as people would like. The issue isn't that he won't keep his word; it's that he's not promising enough in the first place. But people won't vote Conservative in preference, because at least some change is better than none, given how much that party has messed things up.
I don’t disagree, I think the Tory brand is so damaged, and people want change so much that he will win despite his flip flopping and broken pledges. Sir Keir is not seen as shifty at all, he has fallen into the perfect position of being seen solely as a contrast to the dishonest Tories
Two points on Ofsted: not in defence, but to separate fact from fiction.
1. It's a complete myth that inspectors don't have to carry, and show, ID. It's photo ID, and there's a phone number on it inviting anybody who is suspicious of an inspector's bona fides to ring and check.
2. Too many school leaders contribute to the 'culture of fear' instilled by Ofsted by obsessively focusing on preparing for Ofsted. and instilling fear in their teachers, rather than getting on with the day job. In reality, really good schools should relax because they have nothing to fear from inspection.
Yeah. I actually like being inspected. But I can see how it can be horrific too.
Two points on Ofsted: not in defence, but to separate fact from fiction.
1. It's a complete myth that inspectors don't have to carry, and show, ID. It's photo ID, and there's a phone number on it inviting anybody who is suspicious of an inspector's bona fides to ring and check.
2. Too many school leaders contribute to the 'culture of fear' instilled by Ofsted by obsessively focusing on preparing for Ofsted. and instilling fear in their teachers, rather than getting on with the day job. In reality, really good schools should relax because they have nothing to fear from inspection.
Er ... who would believe that that was the correct phone number? In all seriousness, using the phone number the potential fraudster gives you is never a good idea. You'd need to look it up independently - so slightly startling that OFSTED behave basically like scammers and criminals.
I'm not aware of any scammers or criminals turning up at a school reception pretending to be inspectors - it's unlikely to be lucrative - but doubtless it's happened. Nevertheless, it's not hard to check. The school will have been sent a list of inspectors' names etc. in advance of the big day.
You'd easily detect the fake OFSTED inspectors - they would be the ones doing a reasonable, sensible job of it.
Old British Rail joke - "A train robbery was foiled today. Station staff became suspicious when a train left on time."
Andrew Neil makes a good point here - rsther than trying to smear other politicians, the Tories could earn a lot of brownie points with voters by paying out the sub masters in full immediately.
When you think of all the money wasted on PPE & furlough, it would not be that costly and could be the Black Swan they are looking for
Too much “business-as-usual” in Rishi Sunak’s remarks about the sub-postmasters this morning. He doesn’t get the scale of the national outrage. He should have announced Alan Johnson as head of new compensation agency, with all claims generously settled this year and bill sent to Post Office. Plus instructed government lawyers to resolve all miscarriages of justice this year too, with additional compensation. And encouraged NCA to pursue criminal charges against Post Office executives.
Sending the bill to the Post Office? It'd get lost in transit.
The bill should go to Fujitsu. Don't like it and we will start investigating your other contracts in more detail..
Why?
Yes their software was a failure and they should compensate their customer (the PO) for that.
But it wasn’t Fujitsu who prosecuted the SPMs and ruined lives
It was Fujitsu UK that lied about the infallibility Horizon, including about remote access. Without that the prosecutions couldn't have happened.
They are firmly in the frame. The problem is that the others believed them.
Fujitsu is a very large, international company. Even Fujitsu UK is large. I’m not convinced they should *all* be damned for the failures of some. Collective punishment is wrong.
Not for a corporate entity it isn't.
They won't learn any lessons if they can blame a subsidiary or minor part of their organisation.
I have a vague memory that Fujitsu *acquired* a UK company that had this contract?
He does have questions to answer. He should answer them.
But this all looks like a witch hunt now to displace from various Fujitsu and Post Office execs (who are annoyingly faceless and or subject to judicial process), civil servants (also faceless), and Tory apparatchiks.
The problem with the Times article is this part
Jo Hamilton, the lead appellant in a landmark court of appeal hearing in 2021, told the Times that Davey should have 'done his job' adding 'of course Davey should have been asking more questions.
'What did he think, we were just moaning - I cannot believe it
'If you are the Minister you deal with stuff - that is the job. They are called public servants but they do anything but serve the public.
He always calls for other people's resignations, now it is time for him to look in the mirror'
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
Two points on Ofsted: not in defence, but to separate fact from fiction.
1. It's a complete myth that inspectors don't have to carry, and show, ID. It's photo ID, and there's a phone number on it inviting anybody who is suspicious of an inspector's bona fides to ring and check.
2. Too many school leaders contribute to the 'culture of fear' instilled by Ofsted by obsessively focusing on preparing for Ofsted. and instilling fear in their teachers, rather than getting on with the day job. In reality, really good schools should relax because they have nothing to fear from inspection.
Er ... who would believe that that was the correct phone number? In all seriousness, using the phone number the potential fraudster gives you is never a good idea. You'd need to look it up independently - so slightly startling that OFSTED behave basically like scammers and criminals.
I'm not aware of any scammers or criminals turning up at a school reception pretending to be inspectors - it's unlikely to be lucrative - but doubtless it's happened. Nevertheless, it's not hard to check. The school will have been sent a list of inspectors' names etc. in advance of the big day.
Hmm, sure, but I got a bit confused as just now we were discussing the concept of no-warning inspections, which is trickier from that point of view. Interesting comments, though!
No-notice inspections are impractical and therefore very rare - only used if there are extremely serious safeguarding concerns. Generally a school gets a couple of days' notice, and in that time there are extensive phone calls and email exchanges to make arrangements, including exactly which inspectors will be on site.
Two points on Ofsted: not in defence, but to separate fact from fiction.
1. It's a complete myth that inspectors don't have to carry, and show, ID. It's photo ID, and there's a phone number on it inviting anybody who is suspicious of an inspector's bona fides to ring and check.
2. Too many school leaders contribute to the 'culture of fear' instilled by Ofsted by obsessively focusing on preparing for Ofsted. and instilling fear in their teachers, rather than getting on with the day job. In reality, really good schools should relax because they have nothing to fear from inspection.
Er ... who would believe that that was the correct phone number? In all seriousness, using the phone number the potential fraudster gives you is never a good idea. You'd need to look it up independently - so slightly startling that OFSTED behave basically like scammers and criminals.
I'm not aware of any scammers or criminals turning up at a school reception pretending to be inspectors - it's unlikely to be lucrative - but doubtless it's happened. Nevertheless, it's not hard to check. The school will have been sent a list of inspectors' names etc. in advance of the big day.
Not using a phone number from the back of a claimed ID card is anti-fraud 101.
I don't understand why an OFSTED Inspector would refuse to show ID. Is that not SoP at schools?
Two points on Ofsted: not in defence, but to separate fact from fiction.
1. It's a complete myth that inspectors don't have to carry, and show, ID. It's photo ID, and there's a phone number on it inviting anybody who is suspicious of an inspector's bona fides to ring and check.
2. Too many school leaders contribute to the 'culture of fear' instilled by Ofsted by obsessively focusing on preparing for Ofsted. and instilling fear in their teachers, rather than getting on with the day job. In reality, really good schools should relax because they have nothing to fear from inspection.
Yeah. I actually like being inspected. But I can see how it can be horrific too.
He does have questions to answer. He should answer them.
But this all looks like a witch hunt now to displace from various Fujitsu and Post Office execs (who are annoyingly faceless and or subject to judicial process), civil servants (also faceless), and Tory apparatchiks.
The problem with the Times article is this part
Jo Hamilton, the lead appellant in a landmark court of appeal hearing in 2021, told the Times that Davey should have 'done his job' adding 'of course Davey should have been asking more questions.
'What did he think, we were just moaning - I cannot believe it
'If you are the Minister you deal with stuff - that is the job. They are called public servants but they do anything but serve the public.
He always calls for other people's resignations, now it is time for him to look in the mirror'
Agreed. There are a lot of people giving Davey the benefit of the doubt because he’s a Lib Dem and so “he can’t be a bad person” when they would be calling for immediate resignation / castigation if it was a Tory.
Unfortunately, another manifestation of the trend you increasingly see - including on here and mainly from people of the left - which is “it’s not what you do that counts whether you are right or wrong but who you are and whether you have the ‘right’ politics.
Two points on Ofsted: not in defence, but to separate fact from fiction.
1. It's a complete myth that inspectors don't have to carry, and show, ID. It's photo ID, and there's a phone number on it inviting anybody who is suspicious of an inspector's bona fides to ring and check.
2. Too many school leaders contribute to the 'culture of fear' instilled by Ofsted by obsessively focusing on preparing for Ofsted. and instilling fear in their teachers, rather than getting on with the day job. In reality, really good schools should relax because they have nothing to fear from inspection.
Er ... who would believe that that was the correct phone number? In all seriousness, using the phone number the potential fraudster gives you is never a good idea. You'd need to look it up independently - so slightly startling that OFSTED behave basically like scammers and criminals.
I'm not aware of any scammers or criminals turning up at a school reception pretending to be inspectors - it's unlikely to be lucrative - but doubtless it's happened. Nevertheless, it's not hard to check. The school will have been sent a list of inspectors' names etc. in advance of the big day.
Not using a phone number from the back of a claimed ID card is anti-fraud 101.
I don't understand why an OFSTED Inspector would refuse to show ID. Is that not SoP at schools?
Read my earlier post. It's a myth. All inspectors have to show their photo ID on arrival. Of course, a school may be negligent in not asking to see it.
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
It's more an example of simplification for practicality.
To actual prove that a computer system is reliable (to a given level of reliability) is somewhere between expensive and impossible.
So declaring computers to be reliable is cheaper and allows the courts to get on with marching the guilty bastards in for sentencing.
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
HAL9000 says "Hello Dave".
I bought my wife a robot carpet cleaner and it went about its work seamlessly
However, after about half an hour my wife returned to the room it was cleaning and couldn't see it anywhere
Eventually it was found under a settee saying 'I am stuck'
Two points on Ofsted: not in defence, but to separate fact from fiction.
1. It's a complete myth that inspectors don't have to carry, and show, ID. It's photo ID, and there's a phone number on it inviting anybody who is suspicious of an inspector's bona fides to ring and check.
2. Too many school leaders contribute to the 'culture of fear' instilled by Ofsted by obsessively focusing on preparing for Ofsted. and instilling fear in their teachers, rather than getting on with the day job. In reality, really good schools should relax because they have nothing to fear from inspection.
Yeah. I actually like being inspected. But I can see how it can be horrific too.
You're not alone. I used to like being inspected. A chance to show off what you can do, get some external recognition for your work and, if the inspector was good, have a really interesting professional dialogue about pedagogy.
Andrew Neil makes a good point here - rsther than trying to smear other politicians, the Tories could earn a lot of brownie points with voters by paying out the sub masters in full immediately.
When you think of all the money wasted on PPE & furlough, it would not be that costly and could be the Black Swan they are looking for
Too much “business-as-usual” in Rishi Sunak’s remarks about the sub-postmasters this morning. He doesn’t get the scale of the national outrage. He should have announced Alan Johnson as head of new compensation agency, with all claims generously settled this year and bill sent to Post Office. Plus instructed government lawyers to resolve all miscarriages of justice this year too, with additional compensation. And encouraged NCA to pursue criminal charges against Post Office executives.
Sending the bill to the Post Office? It'd get lost in transit.
The bill should go to Fujitsu. Don't like it and we will start investigating your other contracts in more detail..
Why?
Yes their software was a failure and they should compensate their customer (the PO) for that.
But it wasn’t Fujitsu who prosecuted the SPMs and ruined lives
It was Fujitsu UK that lied about the infallibility Horizon, including about remote access. Without that the prosecutions couldn't have happened.
They are firmly in the frame. The problem is that the others believed them.
Fujitsu is a very large, international company. Even Fujitsu UK is large. I’m not convinced they should *all* be damned for the failures of some. Collective punishment is wrong.
Not for a corporate entity it isn't.
They won't learn any lessons if they can blame a subsidiary or minor part of their organisation.
I have a vague memory that Fujitsu *acquired* a UK company that had this contract?
Yes, they bought ICL in 1998 or thereabouts. Horizon seems to have been developed initially while ICL was independent and then rolled out under Fujitsu ownership. I have no idea how much oversight or control the parent company was exerting at the time.
The Mail on Sunday are beginning to notice Sir Keir’s Achilles heel.
“Starmer won the Labour leadership early in 2020 on an undiluted Corbynista platform which included all the major policies of Jeremy Corbyn's 2019 election manifesto (such as widespread nationalisation and abolition of university tuition fees), encapsulated in a ten-point plan.
In a BBC TV interview he assured me these weren't just promises, they were 'pledges' he was making to Labour members and the British people.
Every one, of course, has since been junked, most of them not long after he was elected leader.
For him now to rail against broken Tory promises and the 'political cynicism' that has engendered is rather like Satan setting his face against sin. It is simply not credible. If Starmer is our next prime minister — and I still regard that as the odds-on result come the election — then he will take power with the unique distinction of an opposition leader who has broken more promises and executed more U-turns out of power than most governments manage in office.”
I think the voters quite like it when a politician breaks their promises to a special interest group - like their own party, or the DUP - especially when they're still in control afterwards. People don't generalise to thinking that the politician will later shaft them, they seem to believe that they're different, and the politician will shaft other interest groups in order to keep their promises to the voter.
So they key question is whether they believe the politician is on their side, and shafting all the right other people.
Where it could be dangerous for SKS is if his pledges to the electorate have the air of being drafted by a clumsy lawyer, with the get-out clauses for failing them plain for all to see.
I think calling them ‘Missions’ is a bit of a giveaway; they must have realised he broke all his pledges from the leadership campaign so that word would be kryptonite ’Missions’ can be ‘aborted’ whilst ‘pledges’ can only be ‘unfulfilled’ or ‘broken’
Missions can be an ongoing, long-term affair. Then he only has to convince people he is heading in the right direction and making progress. But I think he needs some other, more concrete and specific promises.
Andrew Neil makes a good point here - rsther than trying to smear other politicians, the Tories could earn a lot of brownie points with voters by paying out the sub masters in full immediately.
When you think of all the money wasted on PPE & furlough, it would not be that costly and could be the Black Swan they are looking for
Too much “business-as-usual” in Rishi Sunak’s remarks about the sub-postmasters this morning. He doesn’t get the scale of the national outrage. He should have announced Alan Johnson as head of new compensation agency, with all claims generously settled this year and bill sent to Post Office. Plus instructed government lawyers to resolve all miscarriages of justice this year too, with additional compensation. And encouraged NCA to pursue criminal charges against Post Office executives.
Sending the bill to the Post Office? It'd get lost in transit.
The bill should go to Fujitsu. Don't like it and we will start investigating your other contracts in more detail..
Why?
Yes their software was a failure and they should compensate their customer (the PO) for that.
But it wasn’t Fujitsu who prosecuted the SPMs and ruined lives
It was Fujitsu UK that lied about the infallibility Horizon, including about remote access. Without that the prosecutions couldn't have happened.
They are firmly in the frame. The problem is that the others believed them.
Fujitsu is a very large, international company. Even Fujitsu UK is large. I’m not convinced they should *all* be damned for the failures of some. Collective punishment is wrong.
Deferred Prosecution Agreements are a useful way to get corporations behaving badly to face up to their wrong doings. They are widely used in the US. You whack a big fine on them and put them on probation for five years during which they need to demonstrate how they are cleaning up their act to avoid the prosecution going ahead. It helps if you can encourage their cooperation with a threat of removing their business licence.
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
Particularly interesting in the case the defence solicitors. "I didn't do it." "But the computer says you did. I have to advise you that in my professional opinion the evidence is overwhelming and you haven't got a defence, so you should plead guilty."
I'm hazarding a guess that being starry-eyed whenever they thought about silicon chips may not have been the sole reason for their actions.
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
HAL9000 says "Hello Dave".
I bought my wife a robot carpet cleaner and it went about its work seamlessly
However, after about half an hour my wife returned to the room it was cleaning and couldn't see it anywhere
Eventually it was found under a settee saying 'I am stuck'
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
HAL9000 says "Hello Dave".
I bought my wife a robot carpet cleaner and it went about its work seamlessly
However, after about half an hour my wife returned to the room it was cleaning and couldn't see it anywhere
Eventually it was found under a settee saying 'I am stuck'
We did laugh
What did you name it - Rishi?
No - just Robo
And it is very good at its job - so no politician would qualify
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
People knock Little Britain now, but turns out ‘Computer Says no’ was way ahead of its time
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
Correct.
Believe large part of the answer was, that the computer system and all its works was/is their meal ticket. Not (usually) in a greedy way, but as paycheck to support themselves and their family.
One of the glues that holds Group Think together far longer than you might guess.
Rather similar to how folks can ignore, discount, deny (for example) climate change IF they, their family, community, region is traditionally and currently dependent on (for example) the coal industry.
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
HAL9000 says "Hello Dave".
I bought my wife a robot carpet cleaner and it went about its work seamlessly
However, after about half an hour my wife returned to the room it was cleaning and couldn't see it anywhere
Eventually it was found under a settee saying 'I am stuck'
We did laugh
What did you name it - Rishi?
No - just Robo
And it is very good at its job - so no politician would qualify
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
Particularly interesting in the case the defence solicitors. "I didn't do it." "But the computer says you did. I have to advise you that in my professional opinion the evidence is overwhelming and you haven't got a defence, so you should plead guilty."
I'm hazarding a guess that being starry- eyed whenever they thought about silicon chips may not have been the sole reason for their actions.
Possibly basing their advice on the Law Society ruling that computer evidence was deemed to be true?
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
"The Only Way Is Up!"
I expect that the scandal will lead all the way back to 1517. Brian Duke probably imported some abacuses from the Japans...
Believe the trouble started circa 1774 when another clueless HMG sacked Ben Franklin as Postmaster General for North America.
Clearly the Lib Dems (Whig Dems?) should have known better!
Indeed Ben Franklin's work on electricity probably contributed to enabling the Horizon system to exist so there is a direct line of culpability.
And look at all the stuff that postmaster general Francis Dashwood got up to in the Hellfire Club!
What are odds, that Ben & Sir Frank used to gather at Medmenham Abbey for a spirited game of "Post Office" with the dollymops . . . and put the whole shebang on their expense accounts under "strategic postal planning"?
seems to be race conditions absolutely everywhere...
A bug there where a check was always returning null - this is why testing has to use realistic test data, and not test data created by the Dev. What a mess.
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
Particularly interesting in the case the defence solicitors. "I didn't do it." "But the computer says you did. I have to advise you that in my professional opinion the evidence is overwhelming and you haven't got a defence, so you should plead guilty."
I'm hazarding a guess that being starry- eyed whenever they thought about silicon chips may not have been the sole reason for their actions.
Possibly basing their advice on the Law Society ruling that computer evidence was deemed to be true?
It wasn't a Law,Society ruling. It was the law which had been changed, following a Law Commission recommendation.
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
HAL9000 says "Hello Dave".
I bought my wife a robot carpet cleaner and it went about its work seamlessly
However, after about half an hour my wife returned to the room it was cleaning and couldn't see it anywhere
Eventually it was found under a settee saying 'I am stuck'
We did laugh
What did you name it - Rishi?
No - just Robo
And it is very good at its job - so no politician would qualify
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
HAL9000 says "Hello Dave".
I bought my wife a robot carpet cleaner and it went about its work seamlessly
However, after about half an hour my wife returned to the room it was cleaning and couldn't see it anywhere
Eventually it was found under a settee saying 'I am stuck'
We did laugh
What did you name it - Rishi?
No - just Robo
And it is very good at its job - so no politician would qualify
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
HAL9000 says "Hello Dave".
I bought my wife a robot carpet cleaner and it went about its work seamlessly
However, after about half an hour my wife returned to the room it was cleaning and couldn't see it anywhere
Eventually it was found under a settee saying 'I am stuck'
We did laugh
Until your wife was sued for not cleaning properly.
"But it was the robot's fault!"
"Sorry madam, technology can never be at fault..."
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
Correct.
Believe large part of the answer was, that the computer system and all its works was/is their meal ticket. Not (usually) in a greedy way, but as paycheck to support themselves and their family.
One of the glues that holds Group Think together far longer than you might guess.
Rather similar to how folks can ignore, discount, deny (for example) climate change IF they, their family, community, region is traditionally and currently dependent on (for example) the coal industry.
Two other factors as well:
1. The sunk cost fallacy - they had spent so much on this bloody system and getting it had been so painful and prolonged (listen to Beer's opening speech at the Inquiry last October for the story of the procurement & the politics behind it) that they simply could not admit that it was rubbish - at least publicly. They had to save face.
2. The push for profitability, especially after Royal Mail was hived off and privatised. All the effort pre-2010 was focused on this and after on getting Post Office into profitability. It distorted priorities (such as acting within the law) and created a culture of ethical blindness.
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
Particularly interesting in the case the defence solicitors. "I didn't do it." "But the computer says you did. I have to advise you that in my professional opinion the evidence is overwhelming and you haven't got a defence, so you should plead guilty."
I'm hazarding a guess that being starry- eyed whenever they thought about silicon chips may not have been the sole reason for their actions.
Possibly basing their advice on the Law Society ruling that computer evidence was deemed to be true?
It wasn't a Law,Society ruling. It was the law which had been changed, following a Law Commission recommendation.
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
Particularly interesting in the case the defence solicitors. "I didn't do it." "But the computer says you did. I have to advise you that in my professional opinion the evidence is overwhelming and you haven't got a defence, so you should plead guilty."
I'm hazarding a guess that being starry- eyed whenever they thought about silicon chips may not have been the sole reason for their actions.
Possibly basing their advice on the Law Society ruling that computer evidence was deemed to be true?
It wasn't a Law,Society ruling. It was the law which had been changed, following a Law Commission recommendation.
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
The entire Blairite/Cameroon establishment is in the frame.
The scandal goes back all the way to 1996.
The whole thing is fascinating from a psychological point of view. The way so many people became absolutely wedded to the idea that a computer system couldn't possibly be wrong.
Particularly interesting in the case the defence solicitors. "I didn't do it." "But the computer says you did. I have to advise you that in my professional opinion the evidence is overwhelming and you haven't got a defence, so you should plead guilty."
I'm hazarding a guess that being starry- eyed whenever they thought about silicon chips may not have been the sole reason for their actions.
Possibly basing their advice on the Law Society ruling that computer evidence was deemed to be true?
It wasn't a Law,Society ruling. It was the law which had been changed, following a Law Commission recommendation.
Excellent article. The position seems tantamount to being tried by black box. "The black box says you're guilty." What's in the black box? "Nothing you could afford to look at, or to pay someone to explain to you."
But I'm still suspicious of those defence solicitors. Did they fight hard at the Legal Aid Board?
IIRC some of the software engineers have said there were bugs in the system right from the start in about 1997, and they never managed to sort them out. So why didn't they speak out about it when the people started being convicted and sent to jail? I can't believe there were living on a desert island somewhere where the news didn't reach.
What bothers me somewhat and the reason I don't dismiss it as a one-off is it fits with anecdotal evidence I'm hearing.
If OFSTED's flawed processes cause most of our school's senior leaders to quit, it's going to be rather difficult to argue it is a positive on the education system.
And that's said without any starry eyed enthusiasm for a lot of SLT.
OFSTED should offer tips on how to improve, not just a grade and saying what is going well and badly
Am one other things, announced inspections don't make sense.
Building stress over months is a former of torture.
Rock up at the school, unannounced, on a bunch of different days (to create a sample).
Some bloke turns up and wants to wander around? No ID (OFSTED inspectors refuse to show them, or do I misremember)? No safeguarding training for the pupils' protection? Hell, not safeguarding training *for Sir and Miss*'s safety for that matter? Any school letting them in gets an instant FAIL, surely.
They have to show ID to get in but it isn't a standard ID type. Once inside, they are ordered not to further identify themselves to staff if challenged, which is still a breach of their own safeguarding guidelines for schools.
Comments
The Directors of most restaurants, like the Governors of most schools, won't be present for an inspection but if the EHO have any follow-up questions for them that can be done separately, and not part of the inspection. Why can't OFSTED do the same?
OFSTED seem to be like VAR in football. In theory a reasonable idea, but doing things badly, they insist on doing everything their own way, learning nothing from others who do similar roles, and respected by nobody.
Wonder what media, etc. in Japan are saying? Anything?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox
https://x.com/guidofawkes/status/1743938778333388809?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The announced ones give time for documents to be prepared, for example looking at clinical incidents, waiting times, staff training reports, infection rates. These sorts of data are not likely to be to hand if an inspector randomly turns up on a unit, though this does have other utility.
The fact that CQC reports are often laughable doesn't invalidate the above.
He was elected in 2005 and was Secretary of State for Wales from 2012 - 2014
David is standing down and the constituency is to be abolished and its wards split between Bangor - Aberconwy, Clwyd East and Clwyd North
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/22/brazen-treachery-rishi-sunak-sabotaging-boris-johnson-policies
But also means that schools effectively feel compelled to do the same, as if others are doing that but you don't, then you stand out as the one with pupils giving the "wrong" answers.
If there's an honest on the day snapshot, then the schools not playing the game don't stand out.
If you had a clear-eyed view of the far-left they were always going to be up in arms about him - as they were never going to be able to unite around anything that deviated from their fantasies. So of course any deviation - which will happen over a leadership was a grand betrayal. Simply sticking to his pledge on antisemitism and showing zero tolerance on it was also a grand betrayal.
Personally, at the time, I thought Starmer knew Labour had to change but lacked the guts to take them on fully. Happily he has been. Though a lot of credit must go to the far left themselves for forcing his hand by being appalling.
Less 'bait and switch' more 'giving enough rope'.
https://news.sky.com/story/tuesdays-national-newspaper-front-pages-12427754?postid=7030842#liveblog-body
Torsten Bell
@TorstenBell
·
8h
In the mid-1960s 12% of what Brits spent (excluding housing) went on alcohol and tobacco. These days it's just 3 per cent.
Often at quite short notice.
He said that some schools were quite frank that they were about to be inspected and wanted some little darlings out of the way.
It is said there are only two basic modes of political campaigning: "Time for a change" and "Don't let the other lot mess things up." The substantive argument against Starmer is that he is not expected to change things as much as people would like. The issue isn't that he won't keep his word; it's that he's not promising enough in the first place. But people won't vote Conservative in preference, because at least some change is better than none, given how much that party has messed things up.
They won't learn any lessons if they can blame a subsidiary or minor part of their organisation.
BBC Japan has stories on it too, of course, but other than that and the Newsweek article I didn't find much. I didn't find anything from the major national papers (Yomiuri, Asahi, etc).
School MANAGEMENT were complaining.
I have no issue whatsoever with anyone turning up unannounced to see what I am doing.
But. What I do is unconventional. Long term. And painfully slow.
What I do is build relationships with some of the most challenging kids over a school year.
I get results. Our rates of attendance are phenomenal. They actually like to be with us.
A day. Or a week observation doesn't cut it.
Which opens up the question - what did David know - because suddenly his name is in the frame for the period 2010-16....
If a bloke turned up on my doorstep flashing a so-called warrant card how am I supposed to agree he's really a copper rather than a burglar? Even I could cobble together a piece of laminated paper with the local plod's logo, his Majesty's royal crest and my photo in the middle. And, in a reassuring script font, the constabulary's mission statement which, if memory serves, is 'Making Warwickshire Slightly Safer'.
I'd like them to be there. Last time they came to see us, to the horror of the SLT. Fortunately, they actually asked the children if their needs were being met.
So I'm still in a job, somehow.
If that is the case then that is more serious for him
https://news.sky.com/story/tuesdays-national-newspaper-front-pages-12427754?postid=7030864#liveblog-body
1. It's a complete myth that inspectors don't have to carry, and show, ID. It's photo ID, and there's a phone number on it inviting anybody who is suspicious of an inspector's bona fides to ring and check.
2. Too many school leaders contribute to the 'culture of fear' instilled by Ofsted by obsessively focusing on preparing for Ofsted. and instilling fear in their teachers, rather than getting on with the day job. In reality, really good schools should relax because they have nothing to fear from inspection.
He should answer them.
But this all looks like a witch hunt now to displace from various Fujitsu and Post Office execs (who are annoyingly faceless and or subject to judicial process), civil servants (also faceless), and Tory apparatchiks.
There’s a connection here between this Post Office scandal, the Ofsted inspections issue, and even the failures in naval recruitment,
It’s the corporatisation or privatisation of public services, and the failure of government to take responsibility as the services degrade.
(Ofsted is not privatised but I understand they’ve dispensed with retired teachers for their inspectors and now use various unqualified busybodies).
...
Maybe I should have uploaded a 1985-era 320x240 8-bit gif.
Return to Sender - Elvis Presley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU5xxh5UX4U
"Did you hear anything suspicious on Wednesday evening around 6pm?"
...
"I think I might have said I heard something suspicious on Wednesday evening around 6pm, but now I'm not sure if you've just put that into my head"
...
"Ok"
:: DC moves onto next flat ::
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9Y0x1jLkLg
I actually like being inspected.
But I can see how it can be horrific too.
Old British Rail joke - "A train robbery was foiled today. Station staff became suspicious when a train left on time."
Jo Hamilton, the lead appellant in a landmark court of appeal hearing in 2021, told the Times that Davey should have 'done his job' adding 'of course Davey should have been asking more questions.
'What did he think, we were just moaning - I cannot believe it
'If you are the Minister you deal with stuff - that is the job. They are called public servants but they do anything but serve the public.
He always calls for other people's resignations, now it is time for him to look in the mirror'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rKC7ElkTUQ
"We Have Become Silhouettes" - The Postal Service.
And for no reason other than I've listened to it tonight - 'Laser Beam' by 'Low' :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=069qtEqtDJc
I don't understand why an OFSTED Inspector would refuse to show ID. Is that not SoP at schools?
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/strip-paula-vennells-of-her-cbe
Unfortunately, another manifestation of the trend you increasingly see - including on here and mainly from people of the left - which is “it’s not what you do that counts whether you are right or wrong but who you are and whether you have the ‘right’ politics.
To actual prove that a computer system is reliable (to a given level of reliability) is somewhere between expensive and impossible.
So declaring computers to be reliable is cheaper and allows the courts to get on with marching the guilty bastards in for sentencing.
However, after about half an hour my wife returned to the room it was cleaning and couldn't see it anywhere
Eventually it was found under a settee saying 'I am stuck'
We did laugh
Clearly the Lib Dems (Whig Dems?) should have known better!
"I didn't do it."
"But the computer says you did. I have to advise you that in my professional opinion the evidence is overwhelming and you haven't got a defence, so you should plead guilty."
I'm hazarding a guess that being starry-eyed whenever they thought about silicon chips may not have been the sole reason for their actions.
Addendum - I laughed too.
And it is very good at its job - so no politician would qualify
Believe large part of the answer was, that the computer system and all its works was/is their meal ticket. Not (usually) in a greedy way, but as paycheck to support themselves and their family.
One of the glues that holds Group Think together far longer than you might guess.
Rather similar to how folks can ignore, discount, deny (for example) climate change IF they, their family, community, region is traditionally and currently dependent on (for example) the coal industry.
BTW, speaking of laughs, did you catch the clip of that hard-working Welsh mouse, on BBC News?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-67902966
See https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/how-was-this-sausage-made/.
"But it was the robot's fault!"
"Sorry madam, technology can never be at fault..."
1. The sunk cost fallacy - they had spent so much on this bloody system and getting it had been so painful and prolonged (listen to Beer's opening speech at the Inquiry last October for the story of the procurement & the politics behind it) that they simply could not admit that it was rubbish - at least publicly. They had to save face.
2. The push for profitability, especially after Royal Mail was hived off and privatised. All the effort pre-2010 was focused on this and after on getting Post Office into profitability. It distorted priorities (such as acting within the law) and created a culture of ethical blindness.
THAT's what I find mind-boggling.
But I'm still suspicious of those defence solicitors. Did they fight hard at the Legal Aid Board?