A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
But most people would call it an accurate description of, say, the Russian state. so should there really be a taboo against that kind of analysis?
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.
Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.
1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation 2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity 3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs 4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.
The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.
Re question 3 - the reason the lawyers fees were so enormous was because the Post Office aggressively fought every single point, no matter how minor or stupid, repeatedly in a determined effort to wear down the SPMs and outspend them. The Post Office was severely criticised in court for its tactics and strategy.
It ignored the judge. Indeed, after it received the judgment in March 2019 its reaction was to try and get rid of the judge, an application which was dismissed scathingly by the Court of Appeal as wholly misconceived. The CEO at this time was no longer Ms Vennells but Nick Read, the current CEO, under whose stewardship the Post Office has repeatedly obstructed the Williams Inquiry, especially over disclosure.
The playbook, in other words, is the same.
Bear in mind that litigation like that will have been expensive and the money being spent will surely have been approved by Ministers. You can see who they are by looking at my headers on this. Greg Clark and Andrea Leadsom. Oh and Tim Cook, the Post Office's part-time Chair.
As you yourself have identified - the idea that this whole scandal could be made to go away by playing dirty and maximising the legal costs until the other side ran out of money - will have originated from the legal profession. That Vennells went along with it is shameful, but it will have been qualified lawyers who devised, advocated and implemented that strategy.
Would that strategy necessarily have originated from the legal profession? It may have done, but the fact pursuing a legal action is expensive, and that stringing it out might be in your interests if the adversary is less well resourced, isn't knowledge that is unique to the legal profession.
Cui bono?
Possibly.
But, for an internal legal advisor, it isn't necessarily to your advantage to generate enormous volumes of work. For external legal, it's more of a mixed blessing than people perhaps assume. You do need to actually resource it, and volume work for the Post Office is solid but very probably not top end in terms of fee earning.
People often get this wrong in terms of the dynamic. Very often, if you look behind litigation that didn't settle at an early stage when it should have, it is the lawyers who were pushing to settle, and one or more of the clients who were pushing not to do so. That's often because "it's the principle" (to which the lawyer will reply "you don't win the principle in litigation - it's basically about cash").
That isn't always the dynamic, and may not be the dynamic here. But, in my experience and contrary to popular assumptions, it's the more common dynamic.
Check out this now somewhat ironic excerpt from Ed Davey's wiki page"
In January 2003, Davey publicly backed local constituent and NHS whistleblower Ian Perkin, who alleged he had been sacked from his director of finance role for exposing statistics manipulation at St George's NHS healthcare trust.
Davey condemned the NHS bureaucracy as "Stalinist" and called for an inquiry into Perkin's case, while personally meeting trust executives to discuss the case on behalf of Perkin.
Farage has accused Sir Keir of not doing anything as DPP about the Post Office prosecutions… at first glance this just seems an ill informed and he has been community noted for it on X, but…
Sir Keir has now come out and said the Post Office shouldn’t be able to prosecute people, presumably to draw attention to the fact it was nothing to do with him as DPP. A potential problem for him is that he has been parading around depicting his time as DPP as a Sheriff of Justice, riding into town righting any wrongs that unscrupulous corporations and politicians committed… even though he was unable to do anything about it, I think the public might see his Uncle Albert “When I was DPP…” white knight act differently, and maybe that what Farage was getting at
Or maybe Farage just messed up
Or maybe Tories these days are so desperate that they have no shame.
Since when was Farage a Tory? Been a while I reckon....
That which we call a Tory by any other name would smell as ...
There is a far wider gulf between Farage and Sunak than there is between Corbyn and the guy who was prepared to sit in his Shadow Cabinet for years as anti-semitism raged in the Labour Party...
Sorry, but I know what I mean by "Tory", whether inside or outside the Conservative Party. And Farage is a Tory to his roots.
What an idiotic thing to say!
It seems to be absolutely standard here to dismiss opinions one disagrees with as "idiotic" or "nonsensical".
I suppose actually explaining why you hold a different opinion might be a bit too taxing.
That’s better than “you are stupid” which is your approach.
Tory is a specific proper noun referring to members of the Tory party. Farage is not a member of the Tory party. Therefore Farage is not a Tory.
Sometimes it really is that simple
Dominic Grieve is no longer a member of the Conservative Party. He still calls himself a "one nation Conservative/Tory"
Farage has accused Sir Keir of not doing anything as DPP about the Post Office prosecutions… at first glance this just seems an ill informed and he has been community noted for it on X, but…
Sir Keir has now come out and said the Post Office shouldn’t be able to prosecute people, presumably to draw attention to the fact it was nothing to do with him as DPP. A potential problem for him is that he has been parading around depicting his time as DPP as a Sheriff of Justice, riding into town righting any wrongs that unscrupulous corporations and politicians committed… even though he was unable to do anything about it, I think the public might see his Uncle Albert “When I was DPP…” white knight act differently, and maybe that what Farage was getting at
Or maybe Farage just messed up
Or maybe Tories these days are so desperate that they have no shame.
Since when was Farage a Tory? Been a while I reckon....
He may not be a Conservative but he's certainly a conservative.
Not really. My MP Simon Hoare, he's a conservative; Farage is a populist pure and simple.
I think that populism can be associated with different ideologies, left and right, rather than it being a political ideology in itself.
Of the three ideologies - conservatism, liberalism and collectivism - I'd put Farage in the first camp.
That's a category error. Populism is a campaigning style, not a philosophically based movement.
Populists often use some form of ideological cover, partly because it gives a degree of credibility and partly because populists need to rally potential supporters against whoever it is they want to blame, and usually that will align with a more grounded ideology ('blame the rich': socialist populism; 'blame foreigners': nationalist populism; blame change: 'conservative populism' etc). But in truth, the common factor is in finding scapegoats rather than fixing problems. Of course, often the scapegoats do deserve some blame and are part of the problem - but not the whole problem and they're rarely wholly malign.
I'm not sure we have an agreed definition of populism. We kind of know it when we see it, but attempts to pin it down are elusive. ISTR a definition on here a while back that it was about siding with the interests of the people against those of a (real or perceived) elite - but that definition would include the Labour Party of the 1980s, which I don't think it would intend to and which I don't think most people who use the term 'populist' would intend to include.
Is it about tastes rather than policy positions perhaps?
Yes. My (1990) copy of the OED defines populist (and, relatedly, populism), as "a member or adherent of a political party seeking support mainly from the ordinary people", which I'd say is a very inadequate definition.
So what do populists look like? I'd suggest: - application of blame to particular groups or institutions, for national failings or problems; - a preference for simple, often sweeping policies as solutions to complex problems; - a refusal to accept expert analysis pointing out problems with the proposals; - an inclination to conspiracy theory.
These all interlink in a sense where 'the people' are being cheated or taken advantage of by an elite or outsiders (or both), who use nefarious means to sustain their power despite their lack of numbers.
I'm not 100% happy with this (and I am just throwing ideas around here, and accept that to a large extent you are too). I can see what you mean, and I agree that in practice populism often looks like that - and I'm not totally unhappy with your final paragraph. But I'd like a definition of populism which wasn't inherently pejorative i.e. which we can described by what it prioritises and what it sets out to achieve, rather than what it does wrong.
BUT - all I can come up with is 'not internationalist'. I would also suggest that a populist would expect to prioritise small business and consumer over big business and producer (and state). But I think there is more to it than that!
A more neutral variation on that list might be:
- application of blame to particular groups or institutions, for national failings or problems; [this is already neutral enough] - a preference for simple, often sweeping policies as solutions to national problems motivated by a belief that complexity is an excuse for obfuscation and inaction; - significant scepticism towards expert analysis pointing out problems with proposals; - a belief that national or global elites have a vested interest in resisting change
I certainly buy 3 and 4. I'm looking for something that someone who describes himself as a populist might agree about their own political views, and I'm not sure they would for #1 (though I certainly see looking from the outside that those are applicable).
I'm also trying, for example, to figure out what the populist approach to HS2 would be. I suspect the answer is 'scrap it and put the money to buses and potholes' - because that is the no-complexity, immediate, closest to the people approach (sceptical of the complex chain of inputs and outputs and outcomes that major investment in infrastructure looks to bring about). But OTOH some populist regimes rather like grands projets.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Indeed. Post Office employees had already been prosecuted for about 12 years when Paula Vennells took over.
They weren’t employees, and prosecutions for fraud had been going on, at a low level, for ever.
I meant prosecutions relating to the Horizon system. Sorry about using the wrong word.
Am wondering, has anyone awarded CBE, yet returned it on grounds that they do NOT wish to be associated with the likes of PV CBE?
They check with you whether you will accept it, before it is formally awarded. There are tons of examples of people who have said no, not least Alan Bates himself.
If Vennells has any sense at all, she'll renounce her CBE pretty sharpish, and get at least a smidgin of kudos for doing so, before it gets stripped from her anyway.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.
Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.
1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation 2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity 3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs 4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.
The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.
Re question 3 - the reason the lawyers fees were so enormous was because the Post Office aggressively fought every single point, no matter how minor or stupid, repeatedly in a determined effort to wear down the SPMs and outspend them. The Post Office was severely criticised in court for its tactics and strategy.
It ignored the judge. Indeed, after it received the judgment in March 2019 its reaction was to try and get rid of the judge, an application which was dismissed scathingly by the Court of Appeal as wholly misconceived. The CEO at this time was no longer Ms Vennells but Nick Read, the current CEO, under whose stewardship the Post Office has repeatedly obstructed the Williams Inquiry, especially over disclosure.
The playbook, in other words, is the same.
Bear in mind that litigation like that will have been expensive and the money being spent will surely have been approved by Ministers. You can see who they are by looking at my headers on this. Greg Clark and Andrea Leadsom. Oh and Tim Cook, the Post Office's part-time Chair.
As you yourself have identified - the idea that this whole scandal could be made to go away by playing dirty and maximising the legal costs until the other side ran out of money - will have originated from the legal profession. That Vennells went along with it is shameful, but it will have been qualified lawyers who devised, advocated and implemented that strategy.
Would that strategy necessarily have originated from the legal profession? It may have done, but the fact pursuing a legal action is expensive, and that stringing it out might be in your interests if the adversary is less well resourced, isn't knowledge that is unique to the legal profession.
Cui bono?
Possibly.
But, for an internal legal advisor, it isn't necessarily to your advantage to generate enormous volumes of work. For external legal, it's more of a mixed blessing than people perhaps assume. You do need to actually resource it, and volume work for the Post Office is solid but very probably not top end in terms of fee earning.
People often get this wrong in terms of the dynamic. Very often, if you look behind litigation that didn't settle at an early stage when it should have, it is the lawyers who were pushing to settle, and one or more of the clients who were pushing not to do so. That's often because "it's the principle" (to which the lawyer will reply "you don't win the principle in litigation - it's basically about cash").
That isn't always the dynamic, and may not be the dynamic here. But, in my experience and contrary to popular assumptions, it's the more common dynamic.
I would broadly agree. Most able lawyers are very conscious of the risks, costs and disappointments of litigation. They would rather have the sure thing both for the client's benefit and also for their own because a happy client is a good client or at least a potential source of further work.
I am not saying that there are not some solicitors and barristers who don't "work their files" generating unnecessary costs but it is a lot rarer than people think because the same logic makes it harder for such lawyers to get repeat work.
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
But most people would call it an accurate description of, say, the Russian state. so should there really be a taboo against that kind of analysis?
It's accurate in the case of the Russian state (well, even then one could say it's too simplistic). It's not accurate in the case of the UK state. Anyone who thinks that the Russian and UK states are that similar is sorely mistaken.
Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot
I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected
He deserves a little credit
Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.
I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?
On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore
She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know
The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch
Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.
Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.
1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation 2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity 3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs 4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.
The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.
Re question 3 - the reason the lawyers fees were so enormous was because the Post Office aggressively fought every single point, no matter how minor or stupid, repeatedly in a determined effort to wear down the SPMs and outspend them. The Post Office was severely criticised in court for its tactics and strategy.
It ignored the judge. Indeed, after it received the judgment in March 2019 its reaction was to try and get rid of the judge, an application which was dismissed scathingly by the Court of Appeal as wholly misconceived. The CEO at this time was no longer Ms Vennells but Nick Read, the current CEO, under whose stewardship the Post Office has repeatedly obstructed the Williams Inquiry, especially over disclosure.
The playbook, in other words, is the same.
Bear in mind that litigation like that will have been expensive and the money being spent will surely have been approved by Ministers. You can see who they are by looking at my headers on this. Greg Clark and Andrea Leadsom. Oh and Tim Cook, the Post Office's part-time Chair.
As you yourself have identified - the idea that this whole scandal could be made to go away by playing dirty and maximising the legal costs until the other side ran out of money - will have originated from the legal profession. That Vennells went along with it is shameful, but it will have been qualified lawyers who devised, advocated and implemented that strategy.
Would that strategy necessarily have originated from the legal profession? It may have done, but the fact pursuing a legal action is expensive, and that stringing it out might be in your interests if the adversary is less well resourced, isn't knowledge that is unique to the legal profession.
Cui bono?
Possibly.
But, for an internal legal advisor, it isn't necessarily to your advantage to generate enormous volumes of work. For external legal, it's more of a mixed blessing than people perhaps assume. You do need to actually resource it, and volume work for the Post Office is solid but very probably not top end in terms of fee earning.
People often get this wrong in terms of the dynamic. Very often, if you look behind litigation that didn't settle at an early stage when it should have, it is the lawyers who were pushing to settle, and one or more of the clients who were pushing not to do so. That's often because "it's the principle" (to which the lawyer will reply "you don't win the principle in litigation - it's basically about cash").
That isn't always the dynamic, and may not be the dynamic here. But, in my experience and contrary to popular assumptions, it's the more common dynamic.
Yes. My old solicitor used to say "point of principle" is the most expensive phrase in the English language.
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
Australian Labor PM scraps proposed referendum on becoming a republic, after conceding his government cannot afford to lose another referendum on constitutional reform.
It will be good news for the King and Queen ahead of their visit to Australia later this year
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Under Boris, and therefore probably under Cameron as well, there was a sense that they all knew each other. They'd been at the same school or the same university or his cousin married her niece. Rishi's best man was political editor at the Spectator which was edited by Boris, and so on. Then if you look at the boards of quangos, the same part-time directors keep cropping up. Even if there is not a political conspiracy, there is a narrow social group at the top.
Farage has accused Sir Keir of not doing anything as DPP about the Post Office prosecutions… at first glance this just seems an ill informed and he has been community noted for it on X, but…
Sir Keir has now come out and said the Post Office shouldn’t be able to prosecute people, presumably to draw attention to the fact it was nothing to do with him as DPP. A potential problem for him is that he has been parading around depicting his time as DPP as a Sheriff of Justice, riding into town righting any wrongs that unscrupulous corporations and politicians committed… even though he was unable to do anything about it, I think the public might see his Uncle Albert “When I was DPP…” white knight act differently, and maybe that what Farage was getting at
Or maybe Farage just messed up
Or maybe Tories these days are so desperate that they have no shame.
Since when was Farage a Tory? Been a while I reckon....
That which we call a Tory by any other name would smell as ...
There is a far wider gulf between Farage and Sunak than there is between Corbyn and the guy who was prepared to sit in his Shadow Cabinet for years as anti-semitism raged in the Labour Party...
Sorry, but I know what I mean by "Tory", whether inside or outside the Conservative Party. And Farage is a Tory to his roots.
What an idiotic thing to say!
It seems to be absolutely standard here to dismiss opinions one disagrees with as "idiotic" or "nonsensical".
I suppose actually explaining why you hold a different opinion might be a bit too taxing.
That’s better than “you are stupid” which is your approach.
Tory is a specific proper noun referring to members of the Tory party. Farage is not a member of the Tory party. Therefore Farage is not a Tory.
Sometimes it really is that simple
Dominic Grieve is no longer a member of the Conservative Party. He still calls himself a "one nation Conservative/Tory"
I am no longer a member of the conservative party but I am a one nation conservative
Seattle Times ($) - Investigation underway after Boeing 737 MAX 9 fuselage blowout
In the second news conference since a door plug to a Boeing 737 MAX 9 blew out on an Alaska Airlines plane midflight, National Transportation Safety Board chair Jennifer Homendy described a chaotic and loud scene on the nearly full flight of 171 passengers, including three babies and four unaccompanied minors.
On Sunday night, after the second day of investigating, Homendy said flight crew members described “a bang” during the explosive decompression, during which the door to the cockpit flew open.
The full capacity of the plane is 178 seats, she said, and the seats closest to the door plug in row 26 were unoccupied.
A panel plugging an unused door blew out at 16,000 feet, before the plane reached cruising altitude, according to early Federal Aviation Administration reports and flight data. A hole in the jet’s frame quickly decompressed air in the cabin, forcing the crew to turn the plane around and return to Portland International Airport. . . .
Investigators documented damage to paneling in several rows but did not find any structural damage to critical parts of the aircraft. Parts of the plane are being sent to NTSB’s lab for further analysis, in some cases to look for microscopic damage.
Homendy said the plane’s “auto pressurization fail light” had illuminated three times in previous flights, once in December and then on Jan. 3 and 4, describing the event as “very benign” and saying that nothing occurred afterward. Additional maintenance was ordered on the plane, but it had not been completed by Friday’s flight, she said; it is not clear to what degree the light might be related to the missing door. . . .
A schoolteacher, identified only as Bob, found the lost door plug Sunday near Portland, according to the NTSB. He discovered it in his backyard and sent two photos to the safety board. Investigators will examine the plug, which measures 26 by 48 inches and weighs 63 pounds, for signs of how it broke free.
Homendy said people have also reported finding two cellphones: one in a yard and one on the side of the road. The NTSB has requested that businesses and homeowners in certain areas west of Portland check their roofs for debris and their security cameras for any relevant footage from around 5:11 p.m. Friday. . . .
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
So your explanation of why so many people in the top echelons of public life fail badly at a post then just get appointed to a new post with often an increase in salary is what exactly? There undoubtedly is a cosy cartel of these people who just seem to find no matter how badly they fuck it up their mates just find them a new gig which they then go on to mess up. Dido Harding being a good example of this.
I showed this video to my cats in the hopes of encouraging similar behaviour. Not that we get many coyotes in north London, but you can't be too careful.
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost several local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at the Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... we arrived c 9.30pm...My wife and I were house hunting and had seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfield and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss. In fact I have never been in the Talbot since that day.
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Under Boris, and therefore probably under Cameron as well, there was a sense that they all knew each other. They'd been at the same school or the same university or his cousin married her niece. Rishi's best man was political editor at the Spectator which was edited by Boris, and so on. Then if you look at the boards of quangos, the same part-time directors keep cropping up. Even if there is not a political conspiracy, there is a narrow social group at the top.
I think there is a narrow social group at the top, but it's not a strictly defined set of people. Who is privileged is porous. It is not organised. It is more spread out and diffuse than talk of a specific "Nu10K". There is, in other words, no conspiracy, just the functioning of inherited privilege and connection.
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
If the jury - of nine women and three men - took 15 minutes to acquit on such a charge, it suggests someone at the CPS might want to think about why it went to trial in the first place.
There is a more fundamental issue here though namely that rape is probably the one crime where there is no such thing as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ - once your name is out there, even if acquitted, generally no one will touch you with a barge pole. You effectively are guilty for life (unless where a claimant is prosecuted for deliberately lying and often the CPS is reluctant to do that because of the backlash it receives even when the evidence is overwhelming).
We need to go back to the old system of anonymity for both accusers and defendants.
Farage has accused Sir Keir of not doing anything as DPP about the Post Office prosecutions… at first glance this just seems an ill informed and he has been community noted for it on X, but…
Sir Keir has now come out and said the Post Office shouldn’t be able to prosecute people, presumably to draw attention to the fact it was nothing to do with him as DPP. A potential problem for him is that he has been parading around depicting his time as DPP as a Sheriff of Justice, riding into town righting any wrongs that unscrupulous corporations and politicians committed… even though he was unable to do anything about it, I think the public might see his Uncle Albert “When I was DPP…” white knight act differently, and maybe that what Farage was getting at
Or maybe Farage just messed up
Or maybe Tories these days are so desperate that they have no shame.
Since when was Farage a Tory? Been a while I reckon....
He may not be a Conservative but he's certainly a conservative.
Not really. My MP Simon Hoare, he's a conservative; Farage is a populist pure and simple.
I think that populism can be associated with different ideologies, left and right, rather than it being a political ideology in itself.
Of the three ideologies - conservatism, liberalism and collectivism - I'd put Farage in the first camp.
That's a category error. Populism is a campaigning style, not a philosophically based movement.
Populists often use some form of ideological cover, partly because it gives a degree of credibility and partly because populists need to rally potential supporters against whoever it is they want to blame, and usually that will align with a more grounded ideology ('blame the rich': socialist populism; 'blame foreigners': nationalist populism; blame change: 'conservative populism' etc). But in truth, the common factor is in finding scapegoats rather than fixing problems. Of course, often the scapegoats do deserve some blame and are part of the problem - but not the whole problem and they're rarely wholly malign.
I'm not sure we have an agreed definition of populism. We kind of know it when we see it, but attempts to pin it down are elusive. ISTR a definition on here a while back that it was about siding with the interests of the people against those of a (real or perceived) elite - but that definition would include the Labour Party of the 1980s, which I don't think it would intend to and which I don't think most people who use the term 'populist' would intend to include.
Is it about tastes rather than policy positions perhaps?
Yes. My (1990) copy of the OED defines populist (and, relatedly, populism), as "a member or adherent of a political party seeking support mainly from the ordinary people", which I'd say is a very inadequate definition.
So what do populists look like? I'd suggest: - application of blame to particular groups or institutions, for national failings or problems; - a preference for simple, often sweeping policies as solutions to complex problems; - a refusal to accept expert analysis pointing out problems with the proposals; - an inclination to conspiracy theory.
These all interlink in a sense where 'the people' are being cheated or taken advantage of by an elite or outsiders (or both), who use nefarious means to sustain their power despite their lack of numbers.
I'm not 100% happy with this (and I am just throwing ideas around here, and accept that to a large extent you are too). I can see what you mean, and I agree that in practice populism often looks like that - and I'm not totally unhappy with your final paragraph. But I'd like a definition of populism which wasn't inherently pejorative i.e. which we can described by what it prioritises and what it sets out to achieve, rather than what it does wrong.
BUT - all I can come up with is 'not internationalist'. I would also suggest that a populist would expect to prioritise small business and consumer over big business and producer (and state). But I think there is more to it than that!
Think of it this way.
Imagine you are about to make love to a beautiful woman and you have unwrapped the condom when the lumpen hordes shout - "No you don't want to do that - that's what those fucking experts say you should do" and then Farage pops up and says "they are right you know, don't put that on your old todge it'll be fine without, have a pint". So you allow yourself to ruled by the ignorant and the results are fine and dandy. Or not.
I always wondered what happened to Swiss Toni. Now we know.
I am not sure that Farage popping up in my bedroom at such a moment would do an awful lot for the ambience. Even with a pint. Call me old fashioned if you wish.
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
So your explanation of why so many people in the top echelons of public life fail badly at a post then just get appointed to a new post with often an increase in salary is what exactly? There undoubtedly is a cosy cartel of these people who just seem to find no matter how badly they fuck it up their mates just find them a new gig which they then go on to mess up. Dido Harding being a good example of this.
I think people with social capital use that to maintain their position and status, within a context of inherited privilege and connections. That is not the same as a cartel. A cartel is a conspiracy: it is an organised, collective effort to an end. My explanation is a more nebulous phenomenon.
There are many in the top echelons of public life who do fail badly and don't get a new post. There is fluidity and porosity in terms of those top echelons.
I showed this video to my cats in the hopes of encouraging similar behaviour. Not that we get many coyotes in north London, but you can't be too careful.
Several years ago in Olympia WA, there was a huge kerfluffle re: folks finding remains of house pets in their backyards & elsewhere. And leapt to conclusion (and they weren't even PBers!) that these outrages MUST be the result of (rogue) Satanists engaged in savage pagan (but not Pagan2) rituals.
After lots of yelling and shouting, and more dead dog/cat findings, somebody finally stopped to think, and figured out, that the most likely culprit was . . . wait for it . . . coyotes.
Which, unlike in north OR south London (so far anyway), are definitely lurking around Washington State and most of the rest of North America.
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost several local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at the Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... we arrived c 9.30pm...My wife and I were house hunting and had seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfield and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss. In fact I have never been in the Talbot since that day.
We may (indeed do) disagree a-plenty - but we're on same page here.
"Sub-postmaster jailed for three years after being 'wrongly convicted for stealing' in Horizon scandal claims he was 'forced to sign confession' that left him bankrupt and with a failed marriage"
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
So your explanation of why so many people in the top echelons of public life fail badly at a post then just get appointed to a new post with often an increase in salary is what exactly? There undoubtedly is a cosy cartel of these people who just seem to find no matter how badly they fuck it up their mates just find them a new gig which they then go on to mess up. Dido Harding being a good example of this.
I think people with social capital use that to maintain their position and status, within a context of inherited privilege and connections. That is not the same as a cartel. A cartel is a conspiracy: it is an organised, collective effort to an end. My explanation is a more nebulous phenomenon.
There are many in the top echelons of public life who do fail badly and don't get a new post. There is fluidity and porosity in terms of those top echelons.
For example who exactly? I can't think of someone in the top echelons that has failed badly and not been found a similar job unless they have decided to retire....the number who have failed badly and then been promoted or moved to a better position however are numerous. Surely you will have ease with giving an example of one that failed yet didn't get a lucrative new post.
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
It doesn't take 90 mins to eat a meal...
If it takes an hour to clean up and you started at 9:00 you don’t want to have to cook a meal and then start cleaning up again.
I doubt few people here or elsewhere see your complaint as any different from Jeremy Clarkson being a twat when the hotel restaurant wouldn’t feed him when he arrived there late at night.
Yes you didn’t get fed that night but everyone is entitled to stop work at some point especially if the job is low paid
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
So your explanation of why so many people in the top echelons of public life fail badly at a post then just get appointed to a new post with often an increase in salary is what exactly? There undoubtedly is a cosy cartel of these people who just seem to find no matter how badly they fuck it up their mates just find them a new gig which they then go on to mess up. Dido Harding being a good example of this.
I think people with social capital use that to maintain their position and status, within a context of inherited privilege and connections. That is not the same as a cartel. A cartel is a conspiracy: it is an organised, collective effort to an end. My explanation is a more nebulous phenomenon.
There are many in the top echelons of public life who do fail badly and don't get a new post. There is fluidity and porosity in terms of those top echelons.
For example who exactly? I can't think of someone in the top echelons that has failed badly and not been found a similar job unless they have decided to retire....the number who have failed badly and then been promoted or moved to a better position however are numerous. Surely you will have ease with giving an example of one that failed yet didn't get a lucrative new post.
Jared O'Mara. He was an MP, which is one of the most exclusive jobs around, proper top echelon. Where is he now?
I showed this video to my cats in the hopes of encouraging similar behaviour. Not that we get many coyotes in north London, but you can't be too careful.
Several years ago in Olympia WA, there was a huge kerfluffle re: folks finding remains of house pets in their backyards & elsewhere. And leapt to conclusion (and they weren't even PBers!) that these outrages MUST be the result of (rogue) Satanists engaged in savage pagan (but not Pagan2) rituals.
After lots of yelling and shouting, and more dead dog/cat findings, somebody finally stopped to think, and figured out, that the most likely culprit was . . . wait for it . . . coyotes.
Which, unlike in north OR south London (so far anyway), are definitely lurking around Washington State and most of the rest of North America.
South London* has foxes, etc., which will do just as well. Vide the infamous Croydon Cat Killer Hysteria.
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
So your explanation of why so many people in the top echelons of public life fail badly at a post then just get appointed to a new post with often an increase in salary is what exactly? There undoubtedly is a cosy cartel of these people who just seem to find no matter how badly they fuck it up their mates just find them a new gig which they then go on to mess up. Dido Harding being a good example of this.
I think people with social capital use that to maintain their position and status, within a context of inherited privilege and connections. That is not the same as a cartel. A cartel is a conspiracy: it is an organised, collective effort to an end. My explanation is a more nebulous phenomenon.
There are many in the top echelons of public life who do fail badly and don't get a new post. There is fluidity and porosity in terms of those top echelons.
For example who exactly? I can't think of someone in the top echelons that has failed badly and not been found a similar job unless they have decided to retire....the number who have failed badly and then been promoted or moved to a better position however are numerous. Surely you will have ease with giving an example of one that failed yet didn't get a lucrative new post.
Jared O'Mara. He was an MP, which is one of the most exclusive jobs around, proper top echelon. Where is he now?
I don't think Jared O'Mara anyone would claim was part of the elite before, during or after being an MP frankly. Being a back bench mp does not by any stretch of the imagination put in you in the top tier of what most would call the NU10K
If the jury - of nine women and three men - took 15 minutes to acquit on such a charge, it suggests someone at the CPS might want to think about why it went to trial in the first place.
There is a more fundamental issue here though namely that rape is probably the one crime where there is no such thing as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ - once your name is out there, even if acquitted, generally no one will touch you with a barge pole. You effectively are guilty for life (unless where a claimant is prosecuted for deliberately lying and often the CPS is reluctant to do that because of the backlash it receives even when the evidence is overwhelming).
We need to go back to the old system of anonymity for both accusers and defendants.
My record to date was unanimously not guilty in 20 minutes. It was indeed a case that should not have proceeded to trial and I had no criticism of the Jury decision.
I am not sure I agree with your broader point though. Firstly, the risk of being accused almost certainly discourages bad behaviour on the part of many who have a lot to lose, that is a position of responsibility. There is a substantial net societal gain in that.
Secondly, there are a number of cases where other women have come forward having heard that someone has made a similar allegation to what happened to them. There would be a significant disbenefit in losing that.
Thirdly, justice needs to be seen to be done in a public forum. It does not do for it to be hidden away in the dark. In the week when we are all getting upset by the SPMs wrongly accused that is particularly so.
Doesn't seem to be complete - lacks the late John Byrne (MBE (ret.), Iraq).
That's an interesting list.
I'm amused that people felt strongly enough in 1965 that they couldn't be a member of the same club as the Beatles. I had assumed from your post that it would be well into John Lennon's 'tiresome hippy' phase - but in 1965 the Beatles were pretty uncontroversial. Possibly in private John Lennon was a deeply difficult individual even then, but were the Beatles in 1965 really the most controversial people ever to get gongs? I wonder if they asked for them back when (according to the list) John Lennon returned his in 1969?
Also from that list, I'm increasingly getting the impression that Michael Sheen is a little odd.
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
So your explanation of why so many people in the top echelons of public life fail badly at a post then just get appointed to a new post with often an increase in salary is what exactly? There undoubtedly is a cosy cartel of these people who just seem to find no matter how badly they fuck it up their mates just find them a new gig which they then go on to mess up. Dido Harding being a good example of this.
I think people with social capital use that to maintain their position and status, within a context of inherited privilege and connections. That is not the same as a cartel. A cartel is a conspiracy: it is an organised, collective effort to an end. My explanation is a more nebulous phenomenon.
There are many in the top echelons of public life who do fail badly and don't get a new post. There is fluidity and porosity in terms of those top echelons.
My experience with C-level / Board management is it is somewhere in the middle. It is not like France where the Enarques scratch each others’ back. But take a look at the annual reports across companies for example and you will see plenty of cross-directorships where CEO X sits on CEO Y’s Board and vice-versa (That is particularly the case when it comes to being Chair of the Renumeration Committee). That encourages a cosy club mentality.
Having said that, a lot also has to do with the fact that the pool they recruit from is so small because they tend to be quite closed-minded when it comes to thinking outside the box about candidates. In my experience, that is more to do with a conservative / risk-averse mindset rather than a deliberate “let’s get out mates in” attitude.
Doesn't seem to be complete - lacks the late John Byrne (MBE (ret.), Iraq).
That's an interesting list.
I'm amused that people felt strongly enough in 1965 that they couldn't be a member of the same club as the Beatles. I had assumed from your post that it would be well into John Lennon's 'tiresome hippy' phase - but in 1965 the Beatles were pretty uncontroversial. Possibly in private John Lennon was a deeply difficult individual even then, but were the Beatles in 1965 really the most controversial people ever to get gongs? I wonder if they asked for them back when (according to the list) John Lennon returned his in 1969?
Also from that list, I'm increasingly getting the impression that Michael Sheen is a little odd.
I remember seeing a bit of film of the Four some years back, but certainly long post the Sex Pistols etc. And thinking what neat clean tidy boys they were that a girl could take home to meet mum and dad.
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
So your explanation of why so many people in the top echelons of public life fail badly at a post then just get appointed to a new post with often an increase in salary is what exactly? There undoubtedly is a cosy cartel of these people who just seem to find no matter how badly they fuck it up their mates just find them a new gig which they then go on to mess up. Dido Harding being a good example of this.
I think people with social capital use that to maintain their position and status, within a context of inherited privilege and connections. That is not the same as a cartel. A cartel is a conspiracy: it is an organised, collective effort to an end. My explanation is a more nebulous phenomenon.
There are many in the top echelons of public life who do fail badly and don't get a new post. There is fluidity and porosity in terms of those top echelons.
For example who exactly? I can't think of someone in the top echelons that has failed badly and not been found a similar job unless they have decided to retire....the number who have failed badly and then been promoted or moved to a better position however are numerous. Surely you will have ease with giving an example of one that failed yet didn't get a lucrative new post.
Jared O'Mara. He was an MP, which is one of the most exclusive jobs around, proper top echelon. Where is he now?
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
It doesn't take 90 mins to eat a meal...
Many moons ago I worked in the Bell Inn at Winterbourne Stoke (on the A303 - some of you may know it). I was mainly bar staff but did do kitchen things too. After the kitchen shut at 9, I often ran the place on my own. One night a coach party came in at about 9.45 pm, desperate for food. With help from one of the other customers (who worked there too) I turned the fryers back on and served up around 15 portions of ham, egg and chips.
I have no idea if this meant that the pub did any more trade in the future but it certainly made some hungry punters happy that night...
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
It doesn't take 90 mins to eat a meal...
If it takes an hour to clean up and you started at 9:00 you don’t want to have to cook a meal and then start cleaning up again.
I doubt few people here or elsewhere see your complaint as any different from Jeremy Clarkson being a twat when the hotel restaurant wouldn’t feed him when he arrived there late at night.
Yes you didn’t get fed that night but everyone is entitled to stop work at some point especially if the job is low paid
Depending on the kitchen it shouldn't take an hour to clean up, but it might have been appropriate to offer a more restricted menu at that point.
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
It doesn't take 90 mins to eat a meal...
Many moons ago I worked in the Bell Inn at Winterbourne Stoke (on the A303 - some of you may know it). I was mainly bar staff but did do kitchen things too. After the kitchen shut at 9, I often ran the place on my own. One night a coach party came in at about 9.45 pm, desperate for food. With help from one of the other customers (who worked there too) I turned the fryers back on and served up around 15 portions of ham, egg and chips.
I have no idea if this meant that the pub did any more trade in the future but it certainly made some hungry punters happy that night...
And if you had burned the place down when working on your own would the insurance have covered it?
Keir Starmer was in Loughborough this morning, visiting the struggling, less well off communities that have been devastated by the flooding. I can't see Jane Hunt successfully defending her majority.
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
So your explanation of why so many people in the top echelons of public life fail badly at a post then just get appointed to a new post with often an increase in salary is what exactly? There undoubtedly is a cosy cartel of these people who just seem to find no matter how badly they fuck it up their mates just find them a new gig which they then go on to mess up. Dido Harding being a good example of this.
I think people with social capital use that to maintain their position and status, within a context of inherited privilege and connections. That is not the same as a cartel. A cartel is a conspiracy: it is an organised, collective effort to an end. My explanation is a more nebulous phenomenon.
There are many in the top echelons of public life who do fail badly and don't get a new post. There is fluidity and porosity in terms of those top echelons.
For example who exactly? I can't think of someone in the top echelons that has failed badly and not been found a similar job unless they have decided to retire....the number who have failed badly and then been promoted or moved to a better position however are numerous. Surely you will have ease with giving an example of one that failed yet didn't get a lucrative new post.
Jared O'Mara. He was an MP, which is one of the most exclusive jobs around, proper top echelon. Where is he now?
Paul Flowers.
I remember when he committed an act of gross indecency in Botley public toilets in 1981. I was surprised that he had somehow become chairman of the Co-op Bank.
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
So your explanation of why so many people in the top echelons of public life fail badly at a post then just get appointed to a new post with often an increase in salary is what exactly? There undoubtedly is a cosy cartel of these people who just seem to find no matter how badly they fuck it up their mates just find them a new gig which they then go on to mess up. Dido Harding being a good example of this.
I think people with social capital use that to maintain their position and status, within a context of inherited privilege and connections. That is not the same as a cartel. A cartel is a conspiracy: it is an organised, collective effort to an end. My explanation is a more nebulous phenomenon.
There are many in the top echelons of public life who do fail badly and don't get a new post. There is fluidity and porosity in terms of those top echelons.
For example who exactly? I can't think of someone in the top echelons that has failed badly and not been found a similar job unless they have decided to retire....the number who have failed badly and then been promoted or moved to a better position however are numerous. Surely you will have ease with giving an example of one that failed yet didn't get a lucrative new post.
Jared O'Mara. He was an MP, which is one of the most exclusive jobs around, proper top echelon. Where is he now?
Paul Flowers.
I remember when he committed an act of gross indecency in Botley public toilets in 1981. I was surprised that he had somehow become chairman of the Co-op Bank.
It took a bit of time, but he failed badly and hasn't gotten a new post.
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
So your explanation of why so many people in the top echelons of public life fail badly at a post then just get appointed to a new post with often an increase in salary is what exactly? There undoubtedly is a cosy cartel of these people who just seem to find no matter how badly they fuck it up their mates just find them a new gig which they then go on to mess up. Dido Harding being a good example of this.
I think people with social capital use that to maintain their position and status, within a context of inherited privilege and connections. That is not the same as a cartel. A cartel is a conspiracy: it is an organised, collective effort to an end. My explanation is a more nebulous phenomenon.
There are many in the top echelons of public life who do fail badly and don't get a new post. There is fluidity and porosity in terms of those top echelons.
For example who exactly? I can't think of someone in the top echelons that has failed badly and not been found a similar job unless they have decided to retire....the number who have failed badly and then been promoted or moved to a better position however are numerous. Surely you will have ease with giving an example of one that failed yet didn't get a lucrative new post.
Jared O'Mara. He was an MP, which is one of the most exclusive jobs around, proper top echelon. Where is he now?
Paul Flowers.
Who was charged with fraud so they couldn't find him a post plus he had a stroke. Look for someone that has failed but not been charged with a criminal offence over it. This wasn't the first time he had failed though and previously he had been moved as he hadn't been charged
"Soon after the film of the apparent purchase of illicit drugs was released to the media, it was revealed that, while deputy head of social services at Rochdale Council, Flowers had known about the activities of paedophiles at a residential boys' school, but had not informed parents or taken measures to close the school, was responsible for rejecting allegations of child sex abuse against the late Rochdale MP Cyril Smith,[10] and that, in 2011, while working at Bradford Council, "inappropriate but not illegal adult content was found on a council computer handed in by Councillor Flowers for servicing. This was put to him and he resigned immediately."[11]"
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
It doesn't take 90 mins to eat a meal...
Many moons ago I worked in the Bell Inn at Winterbourne Stoke (on the A303 - some of you may know it). I was mainly bar staff but did do kitchen things too. After the kitchen shut at 9, I often ran the place on my own. One night a coach party came in at about 9.45 pm, desperate for food. With help from one of the other customers (who worked there too) I turned the fryers back on and served up around 15 portions of ham, egg and chips.
I have no idea if this meant that the pub did any more trade in the future but it certainly made some hungry punters happy that night...
And if you had burned the place down when working on your own would the insurance have covered it?
No idea what the insurance said (I was 19 at the time and an employee) but doubt that there was a stipulation on the number of staff needed to run the kitchen!
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
So your explanation of why so many people in the top echelons of public life fail badly at a post then just get appointed to a new post with often an increase in salary is what exactly? There undoubtedly is a cosy cartel of these people who just seem to find no matter how badly they fuck it up their mates just find them a new gig which they then go on to mess up. Dido Harding being a good example of this.
I think people with social capital use that to maintain their position and status, within a context of inherited privilege and connections. That is not the same as a cartel. A cartel is a conspiracy: it is an organised, collective effort to an end. My explanation is a more nebulous phenomenon.
There are many in the top echelons of public life who do fail badly and don't get a new post. There is fluidity and porosity in terms of those top echelons.
For example who exactly? I can't think of someone in the top echelons that has failed badly and not been found a similar job unless they have decided to retire....the number who have failed badly and then been promoted or moved to a better position however are numerous. Surely you will have ease with giving an example of one that failed yet didn't get a lucrative new post.
Jared O'Mara. He was an MP, which is one of the most exclusive jobs around, proper top echelon. Where is he now?
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
It doesn't take 90 mins to eat a meal...
If it takes an hour to clean up and you started at 9:00 you don’t want to have to cook a meal and then start cleaning up again.
I doubt few people here or elsewhere see your complaint as any different from Jeremy Clarkson being a twat when the hotel restaurant wouldn’t feed him when he arrived there late at night.
Yes you didn’t get fed that night but everyone is entitled to stop work at some point especially if the job is low paid
The pub can do as it likes but if it doesn't serve me it does not deserve my custom. Miller and Carter steakhouse does not refuse cushion at 9.30....
If the jury - of nine women and three men - took 15 minutes to acquit on such a charge, it suggests someone at the CPS might want to think about why it went to trial in the first place.
There is a more fundamental issue here though namely that rape is probably the one crime where there is no such thing as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ - once your name is out there, even if acquitted, generally no one will touch you with a barge pole. You effectively are guilty for life (unless where a claimant is prosecuted for deliberately lying and often the CPS is reluctant to do that because of the backlash it receives even when the evidence is overwhelming).
We need to go back to the old system of anonymity for both accusers and defendants.
My record to date was unanimously not guilty in 20 minutes. It was indeed a case that should not have proceeded to trial and I had no criticism of the Jury decision.
I am not sure I agree with your broader point though. Firstly, the risk of being accused almost certainly discourages bad behaviour on the part of many who have a lot to lose, that is a position of responsibility. There is a substantial net societal gain in that.
Secondly, there are a number of cases where other women have come forward having heard that someone has made a similar allegation to what happened to them. There would be a significant disbenefit in losing that.
Thirdly, justice needs to be seen to be done in a public forum. It does not do for it to be hidden away in the dark. In the week when we are all getting upset by the SPMs wrongly accused that is particularly so.
A few things on those points:
1. True, it probably discourages some behaviour but it still doesn’t deflect from the fact that those accused have a stigma for life. If I read it correctly - and apologies if I haven’t - it feels like the societal good comments is a bit like “a few should suffer for the good of the many” which is not how I would like to see our judicial system running out (I’m probably naive).
2. I get your point but let’s flip this round - why shouldn’t the accuser’s name be public on the grounds it may encourage others to come forward and say the accuser has made similar false allegations in the past? We know - unfortunately - there are false accusations made and they are made for malicious purposes. However, as I understand it - and you would know more so I may be wrong - the cost of a false accusation is very low with very little chance of being charged and the Police / CPS (and the equivalent in Scotland) are under pressure to prosecute even if they would have doubts about the accuser.
3. I would agree re justice not being done in the dark but, linked in with 2, the system of anonymous accusers means it is being made in the semi-dark.
OT, I've not been following this Post Office story but I note that Sir Ed is getting a fair amount of grief, and that some of the victims are gunning for him..
Doesn't seem to be complete - lacks the late John Byrne (MBE (ret.), Iraq).
That's an interesting list.
I'm amused that people felt strongly enough in 1965 that they couldn't be a member of the same club as the Beatles. I had assumed from your post that it would be well into John Lennon's 'tiresome hippy' phase - but in 1965 the Beatles were pretty uncontroversial. Possibly in private John Lennon was a deeply difficult individual even then, but were the Beatles in 1965 really the most controversial people ever to get gongs? I wonder if they asked for them back when (according to the list) John Lennon returned his in 1969?
Also from that list, I'm increasingly getting the impression that Michael Sheen is a little odd.
I remember seeing a bit of film of the Four some years back, but certainly long post the Sex Pistols etc. And thinking what neat clean tidy boys they were that a girl could take home to meet mum and dad.
I remember the historian Dominic Sandbrook saying that in about 1965 - possibly 1964, but I don't think as late as 1966 - if you had cut the British people down the middle you would have found the word 'Beatles' written through them like a stick of rock. They were liked in a way which is hard to relate to now in our more fragmented cultural times. No pop group, and few cultural figures, have ever been as universally and undivisively popular. But clearly Hector Dupuis, Paul Pearson, James Berg, David Evans Rees and Richard Pape felt otherwise.
My most educational video of the day, from a channel called Proper Engineering.
About 80 Cannon Street, a mid-rise built in 1976 to a design by Ove Arup, with a stainless steel exoskeleton supporting framework filled with water to control fire risk, and a totally clear interior / basement because that was the planned route for the Jubilee Line.
Fascinating. Ove Arup continues to be one of my heroes.
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
It doesn't take 90 mins to eat a meal...
If it takes an hour to clean up and you started at 9:00 you don’t want to have to cook a meal and then start cleaning up again.
I doubt few people here or elsewhere see your complaint as any different from Jeremy Clarkson being a twat when the hotel restaurant wouldn’t feed him when he arrived there late at night.
Yes you didn’t get fed that night but everyone is entitled to stop work at some point especially if the job is low paid
Speaking as one with experience as low-paid worker in food service industry, your take on this, is 95% hogwash.
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
But most people would call it an accurate description of, say, the Russian state. so should there really be a taboo against that kind of analysis?
Indeed, seems like another irregular verb.
Power concentrated in particular groups who are interested in outcomes that benefit them, and the state being captured by and serving a small group of people, are two different ways of phrasing the same thing.
Conspiracy theories are typically linking that small group of people to particular groupings - eg Jews, Masons, Illuminati etc - whereas the particular group of people is more often just individuals with privilege, status and connections to abuse, but that's still a small group of people.
OT, I've not been following this Post Office story but I note that Sir Ed is getting a fair amount of grief, and that some of the victims are gunning for him..
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
So your explanation of why so many people in the top echelons of public life fail badly at a post then just get appointed to a new post with often an increase in salary is what exactly? There undoubtedly is a cosy cartel of these people who just seem to find no matter how badly they fuck it up their mates just find them a new gig which they then go on to mess up. Dido Harding being a good example of this.
I think people with social capital use that to maintain their position and status, within a context of inherited privilege and connections. That is not the same as a cartel. A cartel is a conspiracy: it is an organised, collective effort to an end. My explanation is a more nebulous phenomenon.
There are many in the top echelons of public life who do fail badly and don't get a new post. There is fluidity and porosity in terms of those top echelons.
For example who exactly? I can't think of someone in the top echelons that has failed badly and not been found a similar job unless they have decided to retire....the number who have failed badly and then been promoted or moved to a better position however are numerous. Surely you will have ease with giving an example of one that failed yet didn't get a lucrative new post.
Jared O'Mara. He was an MP, which is one of the most exclusive jobs around, proper top echelon. Where is he now?
Prison.
Ironically, nearly seven years after the event, it's clear that the Sheffield Hallam result in 2017 was just about the worst thing that could possibly have happened to the winner, and just about the best thing that could possibly have happened to the loser.
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
It doesn't take 90 mins to eat a meal...
If it takes an hour to clean up and you started at 9:00 you don’t want to have to cook a meal and then start cleaning up again.
I doubt few people here or elsewhere see your complaint as any different from Jeremy Clarkson being a twat when the hotel restaurant wouldn’t feed him when he arrived there late at night.
Yes you didn’t get fed that night but everyone is entitled to stop work at some point especially if the job is low paid
The pub can do as it likes but if it doesn't serve me it does not deserve my custom. Miller and Carter steakhouse does not refuse cushion at 9.30....
Virtually every business has a closing time, if the restaurant is closed at 9:30 then what's wrong with that?
If they advertise they're open until 10pm and they refuse to serve you at 9:30, then that's problematic, but if they close at 9:30 and they refuse to serve you at 9:45 then what's the problem?
If the chef's been there since 10 or 11am that morning, done a lunch service and an evening service then I see absolutely nothing wrong with him finishing up by 9:30pm?
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
So your explanation of why so many people in the top echelons of public life fail badly at a post then just get appointed to a new post with often an increase in salary is what exactly? There undoubtedly is a cosy cartel of these people who just seem to find no matter how badly they fuck it up their mates just find them a new gig which they then go on to mess up. Dido Harding being a good example of this.
I think people with social capital use that to maintain their position and status, within a context of inherited privilege and connections. That is not the same as a cartel. A cartel is a conspiracy: it is an organised, collective effort to an end. My explanation is a more nebulous phenomenon.
There are many in the top echelons of public life who do fail badly and don't get a new post. There is fluidity and porosity in terms of those top echelons.
For example who exactly? I can't think of someone in the top echelons that has failed badly and not been found a similar job unless they have decided to retire....the number who have failed badly and then been promoted or moved to a better position however are numerous. Surely you will have ease with giving an example of one that failed yet didn't get a lucrative new post.
Jared O'Mara. He was an MP, which is one of the most exclusive jobs around, proper top echelon. Where is he now?
Prison.
Ironically, nearly seven years after the event, it's clear that the Sheffield Hallam result in 2017 was just about the worst thing that could possibly have happened to the winner, and just about the best thing that could possibly have happened to the loser.
Worst outcome for us voters in Sheffield Hallam as well.
Doesn't seem to be complete - lacks the late John Byrne (MBE (ret.), Iraq).
That's an interesting list.
I'm amused that people felt strongly enough in 1965 that they couldn't be a member of the same club as the Beatles. I had assumed from your post that it would be well into John Lennon's 'tiresome hippy' phase - but in 1965 the Beatles were pretty uncontroversial. Possibly in private John Lennon was a deeply difficult individual even then, but were the Beatles in 1965 really the most controversial people ever to get gongs? I wonder if they asked for them back when (according to the list) John Lennon returned his in 1969?
Also from that list, I'm increasingly getting the impression that Michael Sheen is a little odd.
I remember seeing a bit of film of the Four some years back, but certainly long post the Sex Pistols etc. And thinking what neat clean tidy boys they were that a girl could take home to meet mum and dad.
I remember the historian Dominic Sandbrook saying that in about 1965 - possibly 1964, but I don't think as late as 1966 - if you had cut the British people down the middle you would have found the word 'Beatles' written through them like a stick of rock. They were liked in a way which is hard to relate to now in our more fragmented cultural times. No pop group, and few cultural figures, have ever been as universally and undivisively popular. But clearly Hector Dupuis, Paul Pearson, James Berg, David Evans Rees and Richard Pape felt otherwise.
Whothey now, indeed? But apparently including a Canadian MP, and rather more than that lot - medals were returned too. Including a colonel who was - till then - a Labour supporter.
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
So your explanation of why so many people in the top echelons of public life fail badly at a post then just get appointed to a new post with often an increase in salary is what exactly? There undoubtedly is a cosy cartel of these people who just seem to find no matter how badly they fuck it up their mates just find them a new gig which they then go on to mess up. Dido Harding being a good example of this.
I think people with social capital use that to maintain their position and status, within a context of inherited privilege and connections. That is not the same as a cartel. A cartel is a conspiracy: it is an organised, collective effort to an end. My explanation is a more nebulous phenomenon.
There are many in the top echelons of public life who do fail badly and don't get a new post. There is fluidity and porosity in terms of those top echelons.
For example who exactly? I can't think of someone in the top echelons that has failed badly and not been found a similar job unless they have decided to retire....the number who have failed badly and then been promoted or moved to a better position however are numerous. Surely you will have ease with giving an example of one that failed yet didn't get a lucrative new post.
Jared O'Mara. He was an MP, which is one of the most exclusive jobs around, proper top echelon. Where is he now?
Paul Flowers.
Who was charged with fraud so they couldn't find him a post plus he had a stroke. Look for someone that has failed but not been charged with a criminal offence over it. This wasn't the first time he had failed though and previously he had been moved as he hadn't been charged
"Soon after the film of the apparent purchase of illicit drugs was released to the media, it was revealed that, while deputy head of social services at Rochdale Council, Flowers had known about the activities of paedophiles at a residential boys' school, but had not informed parents or taken measures to close the school, was responsible for rejecting allegations of child sex abuse against the late Rochdale MP Cyril Smith,[10] and that, in 2011, while working at Bradford Council, "inappropriate but not illegal adult content was found on a council computer handed in by Councillor Flowers for servicing. This was put to him and he resigned immediately."[11]"
A classic example across the private and public sectors would be Dido Harding - totally useless.
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
It doesn't take 90 mins to eat a meal...
If it takes an hour to clean up and you started at 9:00 you don’t want to have to cook a meal and then start cleaning up again.
I doubt few people here or elsewhere see your complaint as any different from Jeremy Clarkson being a twat when the hotel restaurant wouldn’t feed him when he arrived there late at night.
Yes you didn’t get fed that night but everyone is entitled to stop work at some point especially if the job is low paid
The pub can do as it likes but if it doesn't serve me it does not deserve my custom. Miller and Carter steakhouse does not refuse cushion at 9.30....
Virtually every business has a closing time, if the restaurant is closed at 9:30 then what's wrong with that?
If they advertise they're open until 10pm and they refuse to serve you at 9:30, then that's problematic, but if they close at 9:30 and they refuse to serve you at 9:45 then what's the problem?
If the chef's been there since 10 or 11am that morning, done a lunch service and an evening service then I see absolutely nothing wrong with him finishing up by 9:30pm?
Most places close the kitchen to *new orders* at 9:30 - with the exception of deserts and coffee, usually.
They close at 11pm generally.
So that gives 90 minutes to cook and eat, potentially 3 courses.
Some places specifically serve later, but that is rarer.
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
It doesn't take 90 mins to eat a meal...
If it takes an hour to clean up and you started at 9:00 you don’t want to have to cook a meal and then start cleaning up again.
I doubt few people here or elsewhere see your complaint as any different from Jeremy Clarkson being a twat when the hotel restaurant wouldn’t feed him when he arrived there late at night.
Yes you didn’t get fed that night but everyone is entitled to stop work at some point especially if the job is low paid
The pub can do as it likes but if it doesn't serve me it does not deserve my custom. Miller and Carter steakhouse does not refuse cushion at 9.30....
Virtually every business has a closing time, if the restaurant is closed at 9:30 then what's wrong with that?
If they advertise they're open until 10pm and they refuse to serve you at 9:30, then that's problematic, but if they close at 9:30 and they refuse to serve you at 9:45 then what's the problem?
If the chef's been there since 10 or 11am that morning, done a lunch service and an evening service then I see absolutely nothing wrong with him finishing up by 9:30pm?
9:30pm is far too late to be eating an evening meal. You need to be allowing time to digest your food before going to bed. I want to be finished eating by 8 at the latest, ideally by 7.
Doesn't seem to be complete - lacks the late John Byrne (MBE (ret.), Iraq).
That's an interesting list.
I'm amused that people felt strongly enough in 1965 that they couldn't be a member of the same club as the Beatles. I had assumed from your post that it would be well into John Lennon's 'tiresome hippy' phase - but in 1965 the Beatles were pretty uncontroversial. Possibly in private John Lennon was a deeply difficult individual even then, but were the Beatles in 1965 really the most controversial people ever to get gongs? I wonder if they asked for them back when (according to the list) John Lennon returned his in 1969?
Also from that list, I'm increasingly getting the impression that Michael Sheen is a little odd.
I remember seeing a bit of film of the Four some years back, but certainly long post the Sex Pistols etc. And thinking what neat clean tidy boys they were that a girl could take home to meet mum and dad.
I remember the historian Dominic Sandbrook saying that in about 1965 - possibly 1964, but I don't think as late as 1966 - if you had cut the British people down the middle you would have found the word 'Beatles' written through them like a stick of rock. They were liked in a way which is hard to relate to now in our more fragmented cultural times. No pop group, and few cultural figures, have ever been as universally and undivisively popular. But clearly Hector Dupuis, Paul Pearson, James Berg, David Evans Rees and Richard Pape felt otherwise.
Whothey now, indeed? But apparently including a Canadian MP, and rather more than that lot - medals were returned too. Including a colonel who was - till then - a Labour supporter.
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
It doesn't take 90 mins to eat a meal...
If it takes an hour to clean up and you started at 9:00 you don’t want to have to cook a meal and then start cleaning up again.
I doubt few people here or elsewhere see your complaint as any different from Jeremy Clarkson being a twat when the hotel restaurant wouldn’t feed him when he arrived there late at night.
Yes you didn’t get fed that night but everyone is entitled to stop work at some point especially if the job is low paid
The pub can do as it likes but if it doesn't serve me it does not deserve my custom. Miller and Carter steakhouse does not refuse cushion at 9.30....
Virtually every business has a closing time, if the restaurant is closed at 9:30 then what's wrong with that?
If they advertise they're open until 10pm and they refuse to serve you at 9:30, then that's problematic, but if they close at 9:30 and they refuse to serve you at 9:45 then what's the problem?
If the chef's been there since 10 or 11am that morning, done a lunch service and an evening service then I see absolutely nothing wrong with him finishing up by 9:30pm?
Most places close the kitchen to *new orders* at 9:30 - with the exception of deserts and coffee, usually.
They close at 11pm generally.
So that gives 90 minutes to cook and eat, potentially 3 courses.
Some places specifically serve later, but that is rarer.
Many places will see the chef go home as soon as that last order is done after 9:30 too, which again is not unreasonable if the same chef has done lunch and evening service which is not at all unusual in that trade.
If the premise is open until 11pm for alcohol, that's typically served by wait or bar staff who work the evening and haven't been on all day, I have no objections to the chef going home when he's finished and not being expected to work from 10 or 11am until 11pm.
For larger premises this is less of an issue as they'll have more of a team, but for smaller businesses its not remotely unusual to have the same chef doing lunch and dinner which is why they're quite reasonably not wanting to stick around on the off-chance somebody walks in at 10pm wanting food.
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost several local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at the Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... we arrived c 9.30pm...My wife and I were house hunting and had seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfield and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss. In fact I have never been in the Talbot since that day.
Which particular principle are you upholding?
I presume the principle that a rule (such as 'last orders for food 9:30') should be interpreted by staff as context-related rather than absolute?
Surely it could be argued that holding a grudge (which would seem fairly petty to many) as long as you have flouts a principle of forgiveness and tolerance?
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
It doesn't take 90 mins to eat a meal...
If it takes an hour to clean up and you started at 9:00 you don’t want to have to cook a meal and then start cleaning up again.
I doubt few people here or elsewhere see your complaint as any different from Jeremy Clarkson being a twat when the hotel restaurant wouldn’t feed him when he arrived there late at night.
Yes you didn’t get fed that night but everyone is entitled to stop work at some point especially if the job is low paid
The pub can do as it likes but if it doesn't serve me it does not deserve my custom. Miller and Carter steakhouse does not refuse cushion at 9.30....
Virtually every business has a closing time, if the restaurant is closed at 9:30 then what's wrong with that?
If they advertise they're open until 10pm and they refuse to serve you at 9:30, then that's problematic, but if they close at 9:30 and they refuse to serve you at 9:45 then what's the problem?
If the chef's been there since 10 or 11am that morning, done a lunch service and an evening service then I see absolutely nothing wrong with him finishing up by 9:30pm?
I think the point is that the opening hours of a sit down restaurant generally don't correspond with the opening hours of their kitchen, since they build in an assumption about how long a diner will take to eat up and sod off so they can close. Therefore you may well not expect a restaurant which is open until 10pm to serve you at 9.30pm.
But I think that's fair enough. And to do the reverse - to serve you then tell you to hurry up and leave when you've settled in for a leisurely meal - would equally attract complaints.
OT, I've not been following this Post Office story but I note that Sir Ed is getting a fair amount of grief, and that some of the victims are gunning for him..
OT, I've not been following this Post Office story but I note that Sir Ed is getting a fair amount of grief, and that some of the victims are gunning for him..
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
It doesn't take 90 mins to eat a meal...
If it takes an hour to clean up and you started at 9:00 you don’t want to have to cook a meal and then start cleaning up again.
I doubt few people here or elsewhere see your complaint as any different from Jeremy Clarkson being a twat when the hotel restaurant wouldn’t feed him when he arrived there late at night.
Yes you didn’t get fed that night but everyone is entitled to stop work at some point especially if the job is low paid
The pub can do as it likes but if it doesn't serve me it does not deserve my custom. Miller and Carter steakhouse does not refuse cushion at 9.30....
Virtually every business has a closing time, if the restaurant is closed at 9:30 then what's wrong with that?
If they advertise they're open until 10pm and they refuse to serve you at 9:30, then that's problematic, but if they close at 9:30 and they refuse to serve you at 9:45 then what's the problem?
If the chef's been there since 10 or 11am that morning, done a lunch service and an evening service then I see absolutely nothing wrong with him finishing up by 9:30pm?
I think the point is that the opening hours of a sit down restaurant generally don't correspond with the opening hours of their kitchen, since they build in an assumption about how long a diner will take to eat up and sod off so they can close. Therefore you may well not expect a restaurant which is open until 10pm to serve you at 9.30pm.
But I think that's fair enough. And to do the reverse - to serve you then tell you to hurry up and leave when you've settled in for a leisurely meal - would equally attract complaints.
Indeed, though it was stated to be a pub which even more doesn't see the times correspond since a pub will very often be open for alcohol at times the kitchen is closed.
If the kitchen's closed, the kitchen's closed, I don't see a principle involved there - unless the kitchen was advertised as being open at that time the chef is perfectly entitled to go home after the kitchen's closing time.
I'm curious squareroot if someone turned up unannounced at your work after you'd finished for the day, would you be expected to assist them even though you'd already finished for the day?
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
It doesn't take 90 mins to eat a meal...
If it takes an hour to clean up and you started at 9:00 you don’t want to have to cook a meal and then start cleaning up again.
I doubt few people here or elsewhere see your complaint as any different from Jeremy Clarkson being a twat when the hotel restaurant wouldn’t feed him when he arrived there late at night.
Yes you didn’t get fed that night but everyone is entitled to stop work at some point especially if the job is low paid
The pub can do as it likes but if it doesn't serve me it does not deserve my custom. Miller and Carter steakhouse does not refuse cushion at 9.30....
Virtually every business has a closing time, if the restaurant is closed at 9:30 then what's wrong with that?
If they advertise they're open until 10pm and they refuse to serve you at 9:30, then that's problematic, but if they close at 9:30 and they refuse to serve you at 9:45 then what's the problem?
If the chef's been there since 10 or 11am that morning, done a lunch service and an evening service then I see absolutely nothing wrong with him finishing up by 9:30pm?
9:30pm is far too late to be eating an evening meal. You need to be allowing time to digest your food before going to bed. I want to be finished eating by 8 at the latest, ideally by 7.
Don't go to Italy. This , from Food and wine .com
"Mealtimes can vary slightly, but Italians typically eat lunch between 1 and 2:30 p.m. and dinner between 8:30 and 10:30 p.m. Many restaurants will open for lunch around 12:30 or 1 p.m. and close the kitchen from 2:30 or 3 p.m. until 7 or 7:30 p.m. Restaurants that serve dinner before 7 p.m. are catering to tourists."
If the jury - of nine women and three men - took 15 minutes to acquit on such a charge, it suggests someone at the CPS might want to think about why it went to trial in the first place.
There is a more fundamental issue here though namely that rape is probably the one crime where there is no such thing as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ - once your name is out there, even if acquitted, generally no one will touch you with a barge pole. You effectively are guilty for life (unless where a claimant is prosecuted for deliberately lying and often the CPS is reluctant to do that because of the backlash it receives even when the evidence is overwhelming).
We need to go back to the old system of anonymity for both accusers and defendants.
My record to date was unanimously not guilty in 20 minutes. It was indeed a case that should not have proceeded to trial and I had no criticism of the Jury decision.
I am not sure I agree with your broader point though. Firstly, the risk of being accused almost certainly discourages bad behaviour on the part of many who have a lot to lose, that is a position of responsibility. There is a substantial net societal gain in that.
Secondly, there are a number of cases where other women have come forward having heard that someone has made a similar allegation to what happened to them. There would be a significant disbenefit in losing that.
Thirdly, justice needs to be seen to be done in a public forum. It does not do for it to be hidden away in the dark. In the week when we are all getting upset by the SPMs wrongly accused that is particularly so.
A few things on those points:
1. True, it probably discourages some behaviour but it still doesn’t deflect from the fact that those accused have a stigma for life. If I read it correctly - and apologies if I haven’t - it feels like the societal good comments is a bit like “a few should suffer for the good of the many” which is not how I would like to see our judicial system running out (I’m probably naive).
2. I get your point but let’s flip this round - why shouldn’t the accuser’s name be public on the grounds it may encourage others to come forward and say the accuser has made similar false allegations in the past? We know - unfortunately - there are false accusations made and they are made for malicious purposes. However, as I understand it - and you would know more so I may be wrong - the cost of a false accusation is very low with very little chance of being charged and the Police / CPS (and the equivalent in Scotland) are under pressure to prosecute even if they would have doubts about the accuser.
3. I would agree re justice not being done in the dark but, linked in with 2, the system of anonymous accusers means it is being made in the semi-dark.
It is probably a slight oversimplification but the only way I have seen a "false accuser" prosecuted is when they have actually confessed.
Of course many rape prosecutions fall short of the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt even when the complainer is telling the truth as she perceives it. To brand her a liar because that standard was not reached would be entirely wrong.
In Scotland a footballer who was acquitted in similar circumstances was sued for damages in the civil court and the pursuer/plaintiff won. Different standard of proof, different kind of judge (ie a judge, not a jury).
On the anonymity of complainers, I fear many, possibly even most of the complainers I deal with would not proceed if they thought that their name was going to be splashed across the press. Even the relatively small risk of that in cases without a famous accused would put a huge number of people off.
As usual Vetinari has it best: "The female mind is certainly a devious one, my lord." Vetinari looked at his secretary in surprise. "Well, of course it is. It has to deal with the male one."
A PBer (now identified as @Malmesbury) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.
I think he's right, btw
Were you asking for the names of specific people?
Does power often concentrate in particular groups, who are interested in outcomes that benefit them? Yes. But talking about how the state "is captured by and serves a small group of people" is conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more that there is a tendency to spiral into a group that becomes ever more closed.
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
Sure, that is an issue. But the phrasing identified above is pushing this into an exaggeration that becomes more a conspiracy theory than a sensible analysis of power.
So your explanation of why so many people in the top echelons of public life fail badly at a post then just get appointed to a new post with often an increase in salary is what exactly? There undoubtedly is a cosy cartel of these people who just seem to find no matter how badly they fuck it up their mates just find them a new gig which they then go on to mess up. Dido Harding being a good example of this.
I think people with social capital use that to maintain their position and status, within a context of inherited privilege and connections. That is not the same as a cartel. A cartel is a conspiracy: it is an organised, collective effort to an end. My explanation is a more nebulous phenomenon.
There are many in the top echelons of public life who do fail badly and don't get a new post. There is fluidity and porosity in terms of those top echelons.
For example who exactly? I can't think of someone in the top echelons that has failed badly and not been found a similar job unless they have decided to retire....the number who have failed badly and then been promoted or moved to a better position however are numerous. Surely you will have ease with giving an example of one that failed yet didn't get a lucrative new post.
Jared O'Mara. He was an MP, which is one of the most exclusive jobs around, proper top echelon. Where is he now?
Paul Flowers.
Who was charged with fraud so they couldn't find him a post plus he had a stroke. Look for someone that has failed but not been charged with a criminal offence over it. This wasn't the first time he had failed though and previously he had been moved as he hadn't been charged
"Soon after the film of the apparent purchase of illicit drugs was released to the media, it was revealed that, while deputy head of social services at Rochdale Council, Flowers had known about the activities of paedophiles at a residential boys' school, but had not informed parents or taken measures to close the school, was responsible for rejecting allegations of child sex abuse against the late Rochdale MP Cyril Smith,[10] and that, in 2011, while working at Bradford Council, "inappropriate but not illegal adult content was found on a council computer handed in by Councillor Flowers for servicing. This was put to him and he resigned immediately."[11]"
A classic example across the private and public sectors would be Dido Harding - totally useless.
Ironically, the very woman who helped get Vennells her Health Trust job
Farage has accused Sir Keir of not doing anything as DPP about the Post Office prosecutions… at first glance this just seems an ill informed and he has been community noted for it on X, but…
Sir Keir has now come out and said the Post Office shouldn’t be able to prosecute people, presumably to draw attention to the fact it was nothing to do with him as DPP. A potential problem for him is that he has been parading around depicting his time as DPP as a Sheriff of Justice, riding into town righting any wrongs that unscrupulous corporations and politicians committed… even though he was unable to do anything about it, I think the public might see his Uncle Albert “When I was DPP…” white knight act differently, and maybe that what Farage was getting at
Or maybe Farage just messed up
Or maybe Tories these days are so desperate that they have no shame.
Since when was Farage a Tory? Been a while I reckon....
That which we call a Tory by any other name would smell as ...
There is a far wider gulf between Farage and Sunak than there is between Corbyn and the guy who was prepared to sit in his Shadow Cabinet for years as anti-semitism raged in the Labour Party...
Sorry, but I know what I mean by "Tory", whether inside or outside the Conservative Party. And Farage is a Tory to his roots.
What an idiotic thing to say!
It seems to be absolutely standard here to dismiss opinions one disagrees with as "idiotic" or "nonsensical".
I suppose actually explaining why you hold a different opinion might be a bit too taxing.
That’s better than “you are stupid” which is your approach.
Tory is a specific proper noun referring to members of the Tory party. Farage is not a member of the Tory party. Therefore Farage is not a Tory.
Sometimes it really is that simple
Dominic Grieve is no longer a member of the Conservative Party. He still calls himself a "one nation Conservative/Tory"
I am no longer a member of the conservative party but I am a one nation conservative
I remain a member of the Conservative party, and look forward to voting for a right-wing leader again after Sunak - the most left wing PM of my lifetime - gets pummelled electorally at the next election.
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost several local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at the Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... we arrived c 9.30pm...My wife and I were house hunting and had seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfield and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss. In fact I have never been in the Talbot since that day.
‘In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at the Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm’
An absolute fecking classic! Thanks, first proper laugh of the day.
Revenge is a dish best served cold, unless they won’t serve you.
Great opportunity for Rishi. Both Starmer and Davey's scalps would be a game changer.
Farage is, as usual, talking through his arse. Starmer has done nothing wrong here. Other Labour Ministers 1997 - 2010: yes. But not him.
Seriously, I don't follow why you consider that the failings go back to 1997 at a ministerial level. Maybe in terms of procurement failings, but not in terms of anything that could be described as a scandal.
The key point is that the Post Office tried to isolate individuals, so that they thought that the problems they were raising were unique, and for a long time they succeeded.
Alan Bates apparently wrote to the relevant minister alleging problems back in 2003, asking for a meeting. But one person making allegations is never going to get very far, let alone secure a ministerial meeting. Consider that his allegations flew in the face of every other source of information available to a minister, generated by an organisation intent on lying through its teeth to everyone (including politicians) to effect a complete cover up and with what it fed civil service advisers no doubt being passed on to ministers.
Computer Weekly likewise did nothing when contacted by Alan Bates in 2004, again an isolated allegation seemed not to count for much. They say it was when only when they were contacted by Lee Castleton in 2008 with a similar story that they started an investigation.
To me, 2009 not 1997 appears to be the relevant date when ministers should have sat up. The Computer Weekly investigation generated a published article that drew attention to the possibility of systemic problems on the basis of seven case studies of problems with the Horizon system. According to Computer Weekly it "revealed to subpostmasters who were having Horizon problems that they were not alone and that the Post Office was lying to them." On the back of that article, MPs James Arbuthnot and Kevan Jones started a parliamentary campaign. Secondly, the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance was formed and gave a collective voice to what prior to then had been isolated actions by individuals unaware of each others' plight.
Aside from an important fact: when a new system is rolled out on a large scale, you expect there to be issues. Therefore the ministers back in the early days should have been much more suspicious of the new system, and open to complaints about it. The PO could brush away comments later on with sh*t like: "The system's been running for years now, and it's already uncovered hundreds of cases of fraud..."
The early days are the ones where you should be most suspicious. But I wonder if everyone was just relieved that the system had finally been completed and rolled out...
I've definitely experienced similar in my days rolling out IT systems. Senior execs really don't want to hear bad news about a system that's gone in after a long development.
However, I think ministers do have the right to expect the senior execs of a publicly owned corporation to be honest. If they are told the new system is performing ok how are they to judge differently? One SPM complaining out of 35,000 isn't really going to cut it.
I've no wish to defend ministers but until the late 2000s I am not sure they be seen as culpable; the PO execs from that time are at fault.
The ministers from 2010 though, including Davey, could and should have done more imo.
Agree more should have been done post-2010, but disagree about ministers earlier on.
If you read the twitter thread @bondegezou linked to below, Stephen Timms was ignoring concerns with "conflicts are contractual matters for PO" as early as 2003.
If you read it more carefully, you will see Stephen Timms' handwritten note on that letter, that "I am trying to find out what the dispute is here".
I did read it 'carefully', thanks. And that doesn't change my point, does it?
Ministers had the capability of stopping this mess all the way from the late 1990s onwards. The longer it went on, the greater the weight of evidence that something was wrong; but there were signs earlier on that ministers ignored.
They are not blameless.
Yes, it does change your point. You said Bates's MP was palmed off by Timms. The whole letter makes it clear that Timms is investigating even though he could have taken the get-out clause.
???? The letter *says* he is investigating. Obviously, he must have investigated it really well and deeply, because the scandal stopped back in 2003. Oh, it didn't? Perhaps the 'investigation' was just a boozy lunch with a mate from the PO - if that.
That letter was a classic plam-off.
Timms referred it to the Post Office who investigated and found nothing wrong. This is also confirmed by the CW timeline.
Timms: "Someone says you are wrong. Are you?" PO: "No. That person is a stinking liar." Timms: "Cool. Carry on."
You can see the problem with that sort of attitude...
Peculiar that both R4 and LBC are talking about "Paula Vennell", missing off the final 's.
The spelling is curious. Is it not "Venal"?
This tells us she is a proper wrong ‘un.
She then studied Russian and French at the University of Bradford, graduating in 1981 with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree.
Paula Vennells speaks Russian. Dominic Cummings worked in Russia. Boris has a Russian name. It can't be coincidence.
In the 1980s I believe Bradford was the only UK University which had an actual student exchange with real Russian students visiting every year from Leningrad.
A few years later I was house sharing with UK students leaning Russian in Bradford when that year's group of 16 came over. It was interesting - they all came with food supplies in their luggage so they could reserve the money for consumer durables to take home.
Very knowledgeable about English literature from the 18/19C - perhaps from Russian authorities teaching Russians caricatures about the UK, and a rather clunky use of selected English idioms as is sometimes characteristic of Germans speaking English eg "I am in two minds".
Lots of comparisons of the Komsomol to the Scout Movement.
It caused mild havoc when one of the Russian students converted to evangelical Christianity whilst in Bradford.
In my case ,point of principle in past times have cost local businesses a lot of my custom. In one instance I was refused service in 1980 at tye Talbot pub in Cuckfield West Sussex as the kitchen closed at 9.30pm....... My wife and I were house hunting and has seen several houses after work and were quite hungry. The staff member was adamant the clock had ticked past 9.30 and would not give us a meal. I never went there again in the 4 yrs we lived in Cuckfiekd and The Rose and Crown benefited to the Talbot's loss.
Most pubs and restaurants close the kitchen to new orders at around 9:30 - it’s a combination of lack of later orders, the need to clean up which means the staff leave hours later and also that if you serve later, people will be trying to finish their food as the place closes.
It doesn't take 90 mins to eat a meal...
If it takes an hour to clean up and you started at 9:00 you don’t want to have to cook a meal and then start cleaning up again.
I doubt few people here or elsewhere see your complaint as any different from Jeremy Clarkson being a twat when the hotel restaurant wouldn’t feed him when he arrived there late at night.
Yes you didn’t get fed that night but everyone is entitled to stop work at some point especially if the job is low paid
The pub can do as it likes but if it doesn't serve me it does not deserve my custom. Miller and Carter steakhouse does not refuse cushion at 9.30....
Virtually every business has a closing time, if the restaurant is closed at 9:30 then what's wrong with that?
If they advertise they're open until 10pm and they refuse to serve you at 9:30, then that's problematic, but if they close at 9:30 and they refuse to serve you at 9:45 then what's the problem?
If the chef's been there since 10 or 11am that morning, done a lunch service and an evening service then I see absolutely nothing wrong with him finishing up by 9:30pm?
Most places close the kitchen to *new orders* at 9:30 - with the exception of deserts and coffee, usually.
They close at 11pm generally.
So that gives 90 minutes to cook and eat, potentially 3 courses.
Some places specifically serve later, but that is rarer.
Many places will see the chef go home as soon as that last order is done after 9:30 too, which again is not unreasonable if the same chef has done lunch and evening service which is not at all unusual in that trade.
If the premise is open until 11pm for alcohol, that's typically served by wait or bar staff who work the evening and haven't been on all day, I have no objections to the chef going home when he's finished and not being expected to work from 10 or 11am until 11pm.
For larger premises this is less of an issue as they'll have more of a team, but for smaller businesses its not remotely unusual to have the same chef doing lunch and dinner which is why they're quite reasonably not wanting to stick around on the off-chance somebody walks in at 10pm wanting food.
90+ hours a week isn't uncommon for chefs, at not brilliant money. Maybe 35-40k a year but for silly hours.
Farage has accused Sir Keir of not doing anything as DPP about the Post Office prosecutions… at first glance this just seems an ill informed and he has been community noted for it on X, but…
Sir Keir has now come out and said the Post Office shouldn’t be able to prosecute people, presumably to draw attention to the fact it was nothing to do with him as DPP. A potential problem for him is that he has been parading around depicting his time as DPP as a Sheriff of Justice, riding into town righting any wrongs that unscrupulous corporations and politicians committed… even though he was unable to do anything about it, I think the public might see his Uncle Albert “When I was DPP…” white knight act differently, and maybe that what Farage was getting at
Or maybe Farage just messed up
Or maybe Tories these days are so desperate that they have no shame.
Since when was Farage a Tory? Been a while I reckon....
That which we call a Tory by any other name would smell as ...
There is a far wider gulf between Farage and Sunak than there is between Corbyn and the guy who was prepared to sit in his Shadow Cabinet for years as anti-semitism raged in the Labour Party...
Sorry, but I know what I mean by "Tory", whether inside or outside the Conservative Party. And Farage is a Tory to his roots.
What an idiotic thing to say!
It seems to be absolutely standard here to dismiss opinions one disagrees with as "idiotic" or "nonsensical".
I suppose actually explaining why you hold a different opinion might be a bit too taxing.
That’s better than “you are stupid” which is your approach.
Tory is a specific proper noun referring to members of the Tory party. Farage is not a member of the Tory party. Therefore Farage is not a Tory.
Sometimes it really is that simple
Dominic Grieve is no longer a member of the Conservative Party. He still calls himself a "one nation Conservative/Tory"
I am no longer a member of the conservative party but I am a one nation conservative
I remain a member of the Conservative party, and look forward to voting for a right-wing leader again after Sunak - the most left wing PM of my lifetime - gets pummelled electorally at the next election.
That's a bit silly Mortimer.
I know you don't like Sunak, but he's not left-wing.
The most left-wing Tory leader was Heath and possibly Major.
It would have been Heseltine or Clarke had they got elected, but they didn't.
Farage has accused Sir Keir of not doing anything as DPP about the Post Office prosecutions… at first glance this just seems an ill informed and he has been community noted for it on X, but…
Sir Keir has now come out and said the Post Office shouldn’t be able to prosecute people, presumably to draw attention to the fact it was nothing to do with him as DPP. A potential problem for him is that he has been parading around depicting his time as DPP as a Sheriff of Justice, riding into town righting any wrongs that unscrupulous corporations and politicians committed… even though he was unable to do anything about it, I think the public might see his Uncle Albert “When I was DPP…” white knight act differently, and maybe that what Farage was getting at
Or maybe Farage just messed up
Or maybe Tories these days are so desperate that they have no shame.
Since when was Farage a Tory? Been a while I reckon....
That which we call a Tory by any other name would smell as ...
There is a far wider gulf between Farage and Sunak than there is between Corbyn and the guy who was prepared to sit in his Shadow Cabinet for years as anti-semitism raged in the Labour Party...
Sorry, but I know what I mean by "Tory", whether inside or outside the Conservative Party. And Farage is a Tory to his roots.
What an idiotic thing to say!
It seems to be absolutely standard here to dismiss opinions one disagrees with as "idiotic" or "nonsensical".
I suppose actually explaining why you hold a different opinion might be a bit too taxing.
That’s better than “you are stupid” which is your approach.
Tory is a specific proper noun referring to members of the Tory party. Farage is not a member of the Tory party. Therefore Farage is not a Tory.
Sometimes it really is that simple
Dominic Grieve is no longer a member of the Conservative Party. He still calls himself a "one nation Conservative/Tory"
I am no longer a member of the conservative party but I am a one nation conservative
I remain a member of the Conservative party, and look forward to voting for a right-wing leader again after Sunak - the most left wing PM of my lifetime - gets pummelled electorally at the next election.
That's a bit silly Mortimer.
I know you don't like Sunak, but he's not left-wing.
The most left-wing Tory leader was Heath and possibly Major.
It would have been Heseltine or Clarke had they got elected, but they didn't.
And when Boris was trying to get the One Nation types to sleep with vote for him, he happily described himself as Brexitty Hezza.
Taxes have gone up, because even Rishi can't find electorally acceptable spending cuts. How else is Rishi left wing?
Comments
See the issue in France, where nearly everyone at the top comes from an even more limited range of Universities than the UK.
But, for an internal legal advisor, it isn't necessarily to your advantage to generate enormous volumes of work. For external legal, it's more of a mixed blessing than people perhaps assume. You do need to actually resource it, and volume work for the Post Office is solid but very probably not top end in terms of fee earning.
People often get this wrong in terms of the dynamic. Very often, if you look behind litigation that didn't settle at an early stage when it should have, it is the lawyers who were pushing to settle, and one or more of the clients who were pushing not to do so. That's often because "it's the principle" (to which the lawyer will reply "you don't win the principle in litigation - it's basically about cash").
That isn't always the dynamic, and may not be the dynamic here. But, in my experience and contrary to popular assumptions, it's the more common dynamic.
In January 2003, Davey publicly backed local constituent and NHS whistleblower Ian Perkin, who alleged he had been sacked from his director of finance role for exposing statistics manipulation at St George's NHS healthcare trust.
Davey condemned the NHS bureaucracy as "Stalinist" and called for an inquiry into Perkin's case, while personally meeting trust executives to discuss the case on behalf of Perkin.
I'm also trying, for example, to figure out what the populist approach to HS2 would be. I suspect the answer is 'scrap it and put the money to buses and potholes' - because that is the no-complexity, immediate, closest to the people approach (sceptical of the complex chain of inputs and outputs and outcomes that major investment in infrastructure looks to bring about). But OTOH some populist regimes rather like grands projets.
If Vennells has any sense at all, she'll renounce her CBE pretty sharpish, and get at least a smidgin of kudos for doing so, before it gets stripped from her anyway.
I am not saying that there are not some solicitors and barristers who don't "work their files" generating unnecessary costs but it is a lot rarer than people think because the same logic makes it harder for such lawyers to get repeat work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Australian_federal_election#Voting_intention
Seattle Times ($) - Investigation underway after Boeing 737 MAX 9 fuselage blowout
In the second news conference since a door plug to a Boeing 737 MAX 9 blew out on an Alaska Airlines plane midflight, National Transportation Safety Board chair Jennifer Homendy described a chaotic and loud scene on the nearly full flight of 171 passengers, including three babies and four unaccompanied minors.
On Sunday night, after the second day of investigating, Homendy said flight crew members described “a bang” during the explosive decompression, during which the door to the cockpit flew open.
The full capacity of the plane is 178 seats, she said, and the seats closest to the door plug in row 26 were unoccupied.
A panel plugging an unused door blew out at 16,000 feet, before the plane reached cruising altitude, according to early Federal Aviation Administration reports and flight data. A hole in the jet’s frame quickly decompressed air in the cabin, forcing the crew to turn the plane around and return to Portland International Airport. . . .
Investigators documented damage to paneling in several rows but did not find any structural damage to critical parts of the aircraft. Parts of the plane are being sent to NTSB’s lab for further analysis, in some cases to look for microscopic damage.
Homendy said the plane’s “auto pressurization fail light” had illuminated three times in previous flights, once in December and then on Jan. 3 and 4, describing the event as “very benign” and saying that nothing occurred afterward. Additional maintenance was ordered on the plane, but it had not been completed by Friday’s flight, she said; it is not clear to what degree the light might be related to the missing door. . . .
A schoolteacher, identified only as Bob, found the lost door plug Sunday near Portland, according to the NTSB. He discovered it in his backyard and sent two photos to the safety board. Investigators will examine the plug, which measures 26 by 48 inches and weighs 63 pounds, for signs of how it broke free.
Homendy said people have also reported finding two cellphones: one in a yard and one on the side of the road. The NTSB has requested that businesses and homeowners in certain areas west of Portland check their roofs for debris and their security cameras for any relevant footage from around 5:11 p.m. Friday. . . .
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wear-67883460
If the jury - of nine women and three men - took 15 minutes to acquit on such a charge, it suggests someone at the CPS might want to think about why it went to trial in the first place.
There is a more fundamental issue here though namely that rape is probably the one crime where there is no such thing as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ - once your name is out there, even if acquitted, generally no one will touch you with a barge pole. You effectively are guilty for life (unless where a claimant is prosecuted for deliberately lying and often the CPS is reluctant to do that because of the backlash it receives even when the evidence is overwhelming).
We need to go back to the old system of anonymity for both accusers and defendants.
There are many in the top echelons of public life who do fail badly and don't get a new post. There is fluidity and porosity in terms of those top echelons.
After lots of yelling and shouting, and more dead dog/cat findings, somebody finally stopped to think, and figured out, that the most likely culprit was . . . wait for it . . . coyotes.
Which, unlike in north OR south London (so far anyway), are definitely lurking around Washington State and most of the rest of North America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_declined_a_British_honour (returnees are at bottom)
Doesn't seem to be complete - lacks the late John Byrne (MBE (ret.), Iraq).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12936117/sub-postmaster-jailed-wrongly-horizon-forced-bankrupt-marriage.html
I doubt few people here or elsewhere see your complaint as any different from Jeremy Clarkson being a twat when the hotel restaurant wouldn’t feed him when he arrived there late at night.
Yes you didn’t get fed that night but everyone is entitled to stop work at some point especially if the job is low paid
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/its-catching/202207/moral-panic-and-the-raglan-cat-killer
*Edit. Also North London, etc. etc.
I am not sure I agree with your broader point though. Firstly, the risk of being accused almost certainly discourages bad behaviour on the part of many who have a lot to lose, that is a position of responsibility. There is a substantial net societal gain in that.
Secondly, there are a number of cases where other women have come forward having heard that someone has made a similar allegation to what happened to them. There would be a significant disbenefit in losing that.
Thirdly, justice needs to be seen to be done in a public forum. It does not do for it to be hidden away in the dark. In the week when we are all getting upset by the SPMs wrongly accused that is particularly so.
I'm amused that people felt strongly enough in 1965 that they couldn't be a member of the same club as the Beatles. I had assumed from your post that it would be well into John Lennon's 'tiresome hippy' phase - but in 1965 the Beatles were pretty uncontroversial. Possibly in private John Lennon was a deeply difficult individual even then, but were the Beatles in 1965 really the most controversial people ever to get gongs?
I wonder if they asked for them back when (according to the list) John Lennon returned his in 1969?
Also from that list, I'm increasingly getting the impression that Michael Sheen is a little odd.
Having said that, a lot also has to do with the fact that the pool they recruit from is so small because they tend to be quite closed-minded when it comes to thinking outside the box about candidates. In my experience, that is more to do with a conservative / risk-averse mindset rather than a deliberate “let’s get out mates in” attitude.
I have no idea if this meant that the pub did any more trade in the future but it certainly made some hungry punters happy that night...
"Soon after the film of the apparent purchase of illicit drugs was released to the media, it was revealed that, while deputy head of social services at Rochdale Council, Flowers had known about the activities of paedophiles at a residential boys' school, but had not informed parents or taken measures to close the school, was responsible for rejecting allegations of child sex abuse against the late Rochdale MP Cyril Smith,[10] and that, in 2011, while working at Bradford Council, "inappropriate but not illegal adult content was found on a council computer handed in by Councillor Flowers for servicing. This was put to him and he resigned immediately."[11]"
1. True, it probably discourages some behaviour but it still doesn’t deflect from the fact that those accused have a stigma for life. If I read it correctly - and apologies if I haven’t - it feels like the societal good comments is a bit like “a few should suffer for the good of the many” which is not how I would like to see our judicial system running out (I’m probably naive).
2. I get your point but let’s flip this round - why shouldn’t the accuser’s name be public on the grounds it may encourage others to come forward and say the accuser has made similar false allegations in the past? We know - unfortunately - there are false accusations made and they are made for malicious purposes. However, as I understand it - and you would know more so I may be wrong - the cost of a false accusation is very low with very little chance of being charged and the Police / CPS (and the equivalent in Scotland) are under pressure to prosecute even if they would have doubts about the accuser.
3. I would agree re justice not being done in the dark but, linked in with 2, the system of anonymous accusers means it is being made in the semi-dark.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-davey-post-office-horizon-it-bates-b2474822.html
If Paula Vennels loses her CBE I wonder if next in line could be Davey. Presume he was awarded his knighthood for his service as a minister?
No doubt all very unfair, but them's the break and all that.
But clearly Hector Dupuis, Paul Pearson, James Berg, David Evans Rees and Richard Pape felt otherwise.
About 80 Cannon Street, a mid-rise built in 1976 to a design by Ove Arup, with a stainless steel exoskeleton supporting framework filled with water to control fire risk, and a totally clear interior / basement because that was the planned route for the Jubilee Line.
Fascinating. Ove Arup continues to be one of my heroes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yUsDnBXo_g
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/jan/08/franz-beckenbauer-world-cup-winning-captain-and-manager-dies-aged-78
Power concentrated in particular groups who are interested in outcomes that benefit them, and the state being captured by and serving a small group of people, are two different ways of phrasing the same thing.
Conspiracy theories are typically linking that small group of people to particular groupings - eg Jews, Masons, Illuminati etc - whereas the particular group of people is more often just individuals with privilege, status and connections to abuse, but that's still a small group of people.
She then studied Russian and French at the University of Bradford, graduating in 1981 with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree.
If they advertise they're open until 10pm and they refuse to serve you at 9:30, then that's problematic, but if they close at 9:30 and they refuse to serve you at 9:45 then what's the problem?
If the chef's been there since 10 or 11am that morning, done a lunch service and an evening service then I see absolutely nothing wrong with him finishing up by 9:30pm?
https://highfunctioninghuman.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/the-unquiet-ghost-of-the-anti-beatles-left/
https://thebeatlesplus50.com/2019/11/25/november-25-1969/
They close at 11pm generally.
So that gives 90 minutes to cook and eat, potentially 3 courses.
Some places specifically serve later, but that is rarer.
And NOT initially for their hippy-ness OR social activism. But for their "godless, disgusting, etc. etc." MUSIC.
Of course in previous generations, same was said about Frank Sinatra among others.
Betya that some folks thought Laurence Welk (if any Brits know who he was) was a proto-hippy!
If the premise is open until 11pm for alcohol, that's typically served by wait or bar staff who work the evening and haven't been on all day, I have no objections to the chef going home when he's finished and not being expected to work from 10 or 11am until 11pm.
For larger premises this is less of an issue as they'll have more of a team, but for smaller businesses its not remotely unusual to have the same chef doing lunch and dinner which is why they're quite reasonably not wanting to stick around on the off-chance somebody walks in at 10pm wanting food.
I presume the principle that a rule (such as 'last orders for food 9:30') should be interpreted by staff as context-related rather than absolute?
Surely it could be argued that holding a grudge (which would seem fairly petty to many) as long as you have flouts a principle of forgiveness and tolerance?
Not getting at you - just curious.
NEW THREAD
But I think that's fair enough. And to do the reverse - to serve you then tell you to hurry up and leave when you've settled in for a leisurely meal - would equally attract complaints.
At the end of 2015, he accepted a knighthood for 'political and public service' which was announced in the 2016 New Years Honours List.
If the kitchen's closed, the kitchen's closed, I don't see a principle involved there - unless the kitchen was advertised as being open at that time the chef is perfectly entitled to go home after the kitchen's closing time.
I'm curious squareroot if someone turned up unannounced at your work after you'd finished for the day, would you be expected to assist them even though you'd already finished for the day?
"Mealtimes can vary slightly, but Italians typically eat lunch between 1 and 2:30 p.m. and dinner between 8:30 and 10:30 p.m. Many restaurants will open for lunch around 12:30 or 1 p.m. and close the kitchen from 2:30 or 3 p.m. until 7 or 7:30 p.m. Restaurants that serve dinner before 7 p.m. are catering to tourists."
Of course many rape prosecutions fall short of the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt even when the complainer is telling the truth as she perceives it. To brand her a liar because that standard was not reached would be entirely wrong.
In Scotland a footballer who was acquitted in similar circumstances was sued for damages in the civil court and the pursuer/plaintiff won. Different standard of proof, different kind of judge (ie a judge, not a jury).
On the anonymity of complainers, I fear many, possibly even most of the complainers I deal with would not proceed if they thought that their name was going to be splashed across the press. Even the relatively small risk of that in cases without a famous accused would put a huge number of people off.
As usual Vetinari has it best: "The female mind is certainly a devious one, my lord." Vetinari looked at his secretary in surprise. "Well, of course it is. It has to deal with the male one."
An absolute fecking classic! Thanks, first proper laugh of the day.
Revenge is a dish best served cold, unless they won’t serve you.
PO: "No. That person is a stinking liar."
Timms: "Cool. Carry on."
You can see the problem with that sort of attitude...
A few years later I was house sharing with UK students leaning Russian in Bradford when that year's group of 16 came over. It was interesting - they all came with food supplies in their luggage so they could reserve the money for consumer durables to take home.
Very knowledgeable about English literature from the 18/19C - perhaps from Russian authorities teaching Russians caricatures about the UK, and a rather clunky use of selected English idioms as is sometimes characteristic of Germans speaking English eg "I am in two minds".
Lots of comparisons of the Komsomol to the Scout Movement.
It caused mild havoc when one of the Russian students converted to evangelical Christianity whilst in Bradford.
It really is a vocation.
I know you don't like Sunak, but he's not left-wing.
The most left-wing Tory leader was Heath and possibly Major.
It would have been Heseltine or Clarke had they got elected, but they didn't.
Taxes have gone up, because even Rishi can't find electorally acceptable spending cuts. How else is Rishi left wing?