Off topic, and not particularly heartwarming, apologies.
I spent Wednesday at the funeral of one of my students killed in a knife attack, and yesterday trying to pick up the pieces psychologically amongst the student’s close friends who are dealing with the trauma whilst preparing to sit their GCSEs in a couple of months.
The student’s death itself was tragic and perhaps not preventable regardless of the support that might have been in place in previous years.
But two things stand out for me within the education system:
1. There is almost nothing left outside the school gates and the home that might provide an anchor to young people struggling to navigate their teenage years. In my Year 11 class alone I could probably list a third of the students who badly need mental health support, or a youth worker, or a kick up the backside, or a positive role model etc etc (mostly the first tbh). Probably a handful are at risk of the same fate of the student we commemorated on Weds. We know this in school but are powerless to do anything (more) about it.
I can recognise that local services are never perfect, but those who currently advocate lowering taxes bear direct responsibility for the decimation of support for young people at a local level, which increase the risk of tragedies like this.
2. The toll that is being placed on teachers and school leaders who have to operate in an environment I’ve just described is not sustainable. Both I and my boss on our senior leadership team shed tears of frustration yesterday as we discussed what more we can do to prevent a similar tragedy, and admitted to feeling a deep sense of futility and powerlessness. My boss is probably the strongest, most principled and most uncompromising school leader I have ever met. To hear her admit that she feels powerless to change things is shocking and depressing.
Again, I can recognise that more money won’t solve all the ills for young people at the moment, and can also recognise that education rightly wouldn’t be top priority for any spare funding at present.
But again, those advocating for a lower tax take bear direct responsibility for the sorts of decisions that are being made within schools that mean students are left to fend for themselves, with whatever imperfect support is available from home.
Lastly, I’m clear-eyed enough to see that education (and LA) funding will get worse rather than better in the next decade. On a personal level I’m left wondering whether, for my own self- preservation, I need to admit defeat and get out of the system.
Sorry for a long and fairly depressing post - this is more of a lament and part of my own grieving than anything else. Apologies for any self indulgence herein.
Always a tragedy when someone is killed. I'm sure increasing taxes (I think we are already quite highly taxed and no one is talking about raising them further) would be one of several factors in this situation.
Having locked all students down on and off for two years, for example, while likewise not the sole cause of many young peoples' fragile mental health would nevertheless also be a contributory factor I'm sure.
The money to pay for support services, while welcome, is treating the symptom not the cause.
Agreed, as I read back through my post I almost edited the sections about tax take; there are good reasons to argue against taxes at present.
I’m really expressing a deep frustration that we have got into this mess financially - @Stuartinromford and others have it right when he argues that we have been selling off the family silver, so to speak, at least since North Sea oil and probably before then, and as interest rates rise that’s now coming home to roost.
Agreed mental health support etc would be treating symptoms not causes. But better that than nothing.
I mean I yield nothing to the idiocy of Johnson's premiership and the lunacy of Truss's but we have had some pretty bonkers once in a generation exogenous shocks over the past five years. One was of course self-inflicted that would have cut a few percentage points off our wealth and growth but the others really were out of the blue.
Reflecting on Mike’s post yesterday, one of the very best things about this site is the quality of discussion below the line.
This is another good challenge Topping, thanks. If my original post came across as a party political one it wasn’t intended that way. I agree the current government could not have predicted the shocks of the past few years, aside from Brexit and an unfunded Trussterfuck.
Brown deserves some of the blame too for failing to shore up the finances when we were in a more prosperous position.
To add to this: the particular brand of austerity since 2008 was a choice, and left us with invidious choices as eg the pandemic hit.
My real argument, though, is with those who believe that if only the state got out of the way and enabled more growth, these problems would somehow magically recede.
I don’t have solutions, and have deep sympathy for any politicians trying to find solutions. But leaving communities and young people to fend for themselves with bankrupt local authorities is definitely not the answer.
There is a good body of opinion which believes austerity was a mistake and I have a great deal of sympathy for that, while accepting that the UK was spending too much in the years leading up to the GFC.
I suppose the issue is that we the public don't cut our politicians any slack for the attempted management of what scarce resources we now have. Read through each department's literature, their aims, and the costings which would allow them to implement their plans and it is a picture of reasoned sanity. And then I'm sure once the red pen comes out, for it must come out, we are left with a piecemeal, inadequate state of affairs which satisfies almost no one, as we are seeing right now.
Wholeheartedly agree.
To put a more positive spin on all this, an anecdote. I am on childcare on Fridays, and I’ve just taken my 3 and 1 year olds to our local park, where a new skatepark has just been built on the site of a derelict playground.
Today is the first day my 3 year old has got to play in the skate park because it has been chock full of skaters after pre-school every other day.
By all accounts the skate park was built by an enthusiast skater, with really quite a small amount of funding from the council. And yet it is, and will be, exactly what hundreds of local kids need to give themselves a purpose, some resilience, and respite from other stresses in the world.
It’s not in a prosperous part of town, it’s free to those who use it (and pretty cheap to us taxpayers). Dare I say it, it’s the Big Society in action.
ETA if there are solutions out there, this sort of thing must be part of it.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
A curry house take away meal costing much less than £200 according to the restaurant with about 15 people present. Lively party!
The Number Ten events sound just as boring; not the massive rave many make them out to be. Not really 'parties' in the way most people would like parties to be.
Suitcases of wine smuggled in, sex between drunken staff on day of Prince Philips funeral vs sub £200 including food. Yeah, all the same.
Off topic, and not particularly heartwarming, apologies.
I spent Wednesday at the funeral of one of my students killed in a knife attack, and yesterday trying to pick up the pieces psychologically amongst the student’s close friends who are dealing with the trauma whilst preparing to sit their GCSEs in a couple of months.
The student’s death itself was tragic and perhaps not preventable regardless of the support that might have been in place in previous years.
But two things stand out for me within the education system:
1. There is almost nothing left outside the school gates and the home that might provide an anchor to young people struggling to navigate their teenage years. In my Year 11 class alone I could probably list a third of the students who badly need mental health support, or a youth worker, or a kick up the backside, or a positive role model etc etc (mostly the first tbh). Probably a handful are at risk of the same fate of the student we commemorated on Weds. We know this in school but are powerless to do anything (more) about it.
I can recognise that local services are never perfect, but those who currently advocate lowering taxes bear direct responsibility for the decimation of support for young people at a local level, which increase the risk of tragedies like this.
2. The toll that is being placed on teachers and school leaders who have to operate in an environment I’ve just described is not sustainable. Both I and my boss on our senior leadership team shed tears of frustration yesterday as we discussed what more we can do to prevent a similar tragedy, and admitted to feeling a deep sense of futility and powerlessness. My boss is probably the strongest, most principled and most uncompromising school leader I have ever met. To hear her admit that she feels powerless to change things is shocking and depressing.
Again, I can recognise that more money won’t solve all the ills for young people at the moment, and can also recognise that education rightly wouldn’t be top priority for any spare funding at present.
But again, those advocating for a lower tax take bear direct responsibility for the sorts of decisions that are being made within schools that mean students are left to fend for themselves, with whatever imperfect support is available from home.
Lastly, I’m clear-eyed enough to see that education (and LA) funding will get worse rather than better in the next decade. On a personal level I’m left wondering whether, for my own self- preservation, I need to admit defeat and get out of the system.
Sorry for a long and fairly depressing post - this is more of a lament and part of my own grieving than anything else. Apologies for any self indulgence herein.
The only quibble I have with your excellent post is the idea that anyone advocating for lower tax bear some responsibility for your lack of funding.
It would be possible to cut taxes while diverting a much larger proportion of government spending towards younger people for a net positive effect. Just look at how health and social care spending (both more likely to be used by older people) has increased much faster than demographic change, even while spending on education has fallen.
Local Authority funding is one issue that no political party, north or south of the border, wants to address. It's where most of the cuts have fallen and I reckon a direct reason why central government spending is now coming under such pressure.
Thanks. And yes good point, and it was heartening to hear on the Private Eye podcast yesterday that the doctor who writes for them about the NHS was advocating for money to be diverted from health towards education (best bang of your buck in terms of prevention).
Part of the issue as well is down to the checks that have to be done for safeguarding, when I was younger for example I used to volunteer and help run a youth club organised by the local methodists. Would I do it now? Not a chance because it has now gone from a simple request asking if I would help to which the answer is yes....to fill out this form wait weeks while someone rifles through your life etc. It just isn't something I feel strongly enough to jump through the hoops for.
The same issue has caused many clubs that had junior sections to close them. People don't want to jump through the hoops of getting vetted and the clubs don't want to do all the work of appointing a safe guarding officer etc.
This alone has caused a drop in whats available to youths.
I'm surprised by this, I got an enhanced DBS check to do voluntary work with children and it was quick and completely painless.
I had to have one for a job it wasn't quick certainly. However having one to volunteer not going to bother. For many people its just the idea of having your life raked over to qualify when all they are trying to do is put back something. A lot of people also believe it is overkill.
The club i volunteered at all I was doing was setting up equipement like table tennis tables and breaking them down and clearing up at the end of the session as well as being present and defusing squabbles between the kids. The club was held in one big room with no hidden corners and a minimum of 3 adults present. Potential for abuse as close to zero as can be. Sheer beauracratic overkill
You are being utterly naive about how abusers work. They gravitate to places, where they can get close to children and be trusted. Then .....
Not at all, we constantly get stories of abuse however and all those abusers have been vetted. As you love to point out the met is full of vetted people. It does not seem to be working to prevent abuse as far as I can tell. It does however act as a barrier to entry for those that genuinely are inclined to volunteer.
For example in the youth club I volunteered at I knew all those kids already before I started there and most of the parents (small town cornwall ) because they all hung out round the harbour as did most of us young adults......so the check wouldn't have prevented a single thing. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Now what I would say is that their is definitely a case for those doing one on one sessions with kids or overnight stays like camping
Some delusional comments in here today by the Trump Cult . Trashing Biden who wants more aid to go to Ukraine and there’s tumbleweed when it comes to any criticism of the Putin lover Trump .
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
With Currygate, people were meeting up for work purposes, as allowed by the rules at the time (rules made by Boris’s government). The additional epidemiological risk of those people, who have already met up, having some food and beer while working, is small, which is why the rules allowed it.
There were multiple Partygate events. Generally, they were earlier in the pandemic, when the risks were higher. They often involved people who had already met up for work purposes continuing to spend time together, so again the epidemiological risk there is small. However, on several occasions, teams from different parts of No. 10 who hadn’t been working on the same space got together, increasing the risk. Activities continued on often longer than the Currygate meal, increasing the risk. In some cases, those present got raucously drunk and made out with each other, increasing the risk. And, of course, multiple events, wine parties every Friday, increases the risk.
So, overall, no, you are completely wrong. The epidemiological risk of Partygate greatly exceeded that of Currygate.
Yes. Two years into the war and the West is failing to provide Ukraine with enough ammunition to keep fighting, and to win the war. It's a massive, monumental failure that will have huge negative consequences if the situation is not rapidly turned around.
I can't help but feel that Boris Johnson would have taken a "do whatever it takes" approach, if he had still been PM, and Britain would have spent more money to increase the supply of ammunition to Ukraine.
But we are where we are, and it looks grim.
Is this not mainly down to Trumps Republicans refusing to agree further funds.
Hasnt Trump said he will stop funding in its entirety if he is elected?
The only excusable way for the Tories to change leader again, and for that leader to have any legitimacy, is to find a way of getting Boris back, then begging him to take it
That would involve a Tory MP standing down and Boris fighting a by-election. Boris would not win a by-election in any constituency in the UK at the moment.
Yes. Do you not think so? If that’s true, it’s not worth making him leader! But I’d have thought there was somewhere
I agree with those saying he'd not win a by-election anywhere at the moment.
The one route, though, would be to make him party leader and "PM designate" with an immediate general election. He'd have a reasonable chance of becoming an MP in a General Election as it's harder for parties to pour resources into a single seat, and turnout is higher so much harder to get the by-election swings which are based on a combination of switching and differential turnout.
It won't happen, though. Far too many Tory MPs are far too opposed to make it in any way credible. It's a fantasy for a certain type of Tory, but nothing more.
That’s a shame, because he is the only possible PM with any legitimacy, and the choice of people who voted Tory at the next GE
For all the guff about ‘we vote for an MP…’ changing PMs midterm for anything other than health reasons should mean a GE within six months. A party with Truss or Sunak as leader would not have won in 2019, so they had no right to be running the country
How does he have any legitimacy, having run away from Parliament ?
And how can you say who might be "the choice of people who voted Tory at the next GE" - or did you mean last GE ?
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
As for the "virus spreading POV" that is not the debate. Whether he was entitled to have a beer and a curry in the Miners Welfare ( or wherever it was) in Durham is.
Yep. It's quite ridiculous that this has come up again. The usually sensible @JosiasJessop is obsessed with Currygate and brings it up every few weeks.
Sir Keir staked his leadership on it. He offered to resign if found guilty of wrongdoing. He was cleared. Yet Josias would rather he was tried in the Court of Jessop – under laws of his own imagination.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
A curry house take away meal costing much less than £200 according to the restaurant with about 15 people present. Lively party!
The Number Ten events sound just as boring; not the massive rave many make them out to be. Not really 'parties' in the way most people would like parties to be.
Suitcases of wine smuggled in, sex between drunken staff on day of Prince Philips funeral vs sub £200 including food. Yeah, all the same.
In any case, that's a squirrel.
What caused Boris to lose the PMship was lying to his MPs about Chris Pincher. (And if you think that was a nothing, would you have confidence in a boss who knowingly made a sex pest your line manager? How would you feel if your partner's boss did that to them?)
And what made him so vulnerable was lying in the chamber (where you don't tell lies, simple as) about what happened in Downing Street during lockdown. If those "special meetings" were OK, why did Boris lie about them? (Actually, there's a simple answer to that one, it's because that's what Boris always does about everything.)
It was heart-warming to read the many posts yesterday showing appreciation of OGH and his team. This was no surprise, but I was amazed at the number of comments from Lurkers who had posted seldom, or never before. That's some tribute. To think that in addition to the likes of me droning on publicly there's a small army of silent followers....
Impressive.
They should get themselves commenting. I know it's not for everyone but it all helps to make the site go round.
Vaguely related, I have often thought of two PB thought experiments.
The first is to have us all debating a familiar topic - Brexit, AV, what have you and instead of making our arguments simply use numbers to refer to the points eg Pt 1 = We were always sovereign, etc
The other is for one day (hour?) to have us all argue vehemently the opposite position to our own. @Richard_Tyndall for staying in (now rejoining) the EU, @BartholomewRoberts about the importance of the greenbelt and sanctity of our planning laws and the countryside, etc. Would be vaguely amusing.
Until the thread was sidetracked by a discussion about Transnistrian Cabernet Franc.
I fondly remember the University debating society having the annual ‘argue the other side’ debate. It’s a very good intellectual exercise, to understand what your political opponents think and be able to argue their side.
The year they did womens society vs catholic society, on the subject of abortion, was probably the highlight of three years of attending debates.
Sadly it would never happen now, at least not for in-person debates, because social media clips and a lack of context.
It would certainly be used to attack the careers of those presenting the unfashionable side of the debate.
My father tells me that when doing such philosophical debates in university, some students refuse, and others demand a no recording policy.
I hope they are not training to be lawyers. Because learning how to make your opponent's case as well as possible, even better than them, is essential training.
Perhaps they need to be reminded of Mills' quote: "He who knows only his side of a case knows little of that."
Rozzers investigating Frank Hestor for his Diane Abbott comments.
The rozzers need to have a word with themselves. He's clearly an unpleasant person and what he said about Abbott was offensive, but if that's the criteria for getting the rozzers involved, we're gonna need a bigger police service.
Ahem ..... Scotland and its new Hate Crime Act. Though, oddly, women are not protected by it.
Just as well the Scottish police didn’t hold workshops on their new “hate crime” laws, with a parody character “Jo”, whose online opinions quickly move from “there are only two genders” to “they all belong in gas chambers”.
Yes. Two years into the war and the West is failing to provide Ukraine with enough ammunition to keep fighting, and to win the war. It's a massive, monumental failure that will have huge negative consequences if the situation is not rapidly turned around.
I can't help but feel that Boris Johnson would have taken a "do whatever it takes" approach, if he had still been PM, and Britain would have spent more money to increase the supply of ammunition to Ukraine.
Yes. If there is one trait for which Johnson justly enjoys great renown, it is his dogged and enduring loyalty.
It's not about loyalty.
It's his willingness to spend money when a need for spending money is indicated, rather than penny-pinching and half measures.
It's his relatively simplistic approach - instead of getting tangled up with worrying about how the Russians might react, and trying to find them offramps, he had decided that he was opposed to what the Russians were doing and he was going to do what he could to stop them.
Just as with Brexit he didn't particularly give a damn about the details of the deal - but he knew that Britain needed one quickly. So he did what had to be done.
The leaders in charge now are overthinking things and half-arsing them.
Biden basically wants Ukraine to accept defeat to Putin, and the rape of the Ukrainian nation, so that gas stays cheap and Biden has a better chance of taking Michigan
“American President, go fuck yourself”
I ran some numbers at the start of the week on Russian refining capacity. There’s name plate capacity that’s geographical relevant to the war and Western Russia of around 5 mln barrels per day from 30 refineries. As of Monday, 14 of those had been hit. Unknown which units and how much damage but Goldmans were assuming around 40% knocked off production capacity, equivalent to around 25% of the total available refined product capacity capability.
As a result youve been starting to see more crude going east, less profit for Russia and a longer logistic chain for its army. I put refineries with capacity of around 1.6mm bbl of capacity within easy range, not counting the chance to knock out other units at the plants already hit. But there’s not been anything in a few days, now we know why.
There is of course a big weakness in Russia’s logistic chain if saboteurs are able to hit the main onshore crude pipelines at random points repeatedly. It hasn’t happened, presumably because Uncle Sam forbids it. But if the US isn’t providing more aid anyway, at what point does Kiev think, feck it we’ll fight with the only means we have available to us?
Some delusional comments in here today by the Trump Cult . Trashing Biden who wants more aid to go to Ukraine and there’s tumbleweed when it comes to any criticism of the Putin lover Trump .
You're far too credulous. Biden has been Mr Go Slow all along. He publicly told Zelensky early in the war that he couldn't give them what they are asking for because it would split NATO and have had a policy of preventing Ukraine from hitting Russia outside Ukrainian territory.
Yes. Two years into the war and the West is failing to provide Ukraine with enough ammunition to keep fighting, and to win the war. It's a massive, monumental failure that will have huge negative consequences if the situation is not rapidly turned around.
I can't help but feel that Boris Johnson would have taken a "do whatever it takes" approach, if he had still been PM, and Britain would have spent more money to increase the supply of ammunition to Ukraine.
But we are where we are, and it looks grim.
Is this not mainly down to Trumps Republicans refusing to agree further funds.
Hasnt Trump said he will stop funding in its entirety if he is elected?
That's a big factor, yes, but Europe could and should have done more.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
You talk of a group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions. One of the most infamous Partygate events was that on 16 April 2021, which involved two leaving parties, one for James Slack, Boris Johnson's director of communications, and one for a personal photographer to Johnson. Was a personal photographer to Johnson making life-and-death decisions? (If so, that might explain some of the poor decisions the government made!)
Meanwhile, healthcare staff, who were making actual life-and-death decisions on a regular basis, somehow managed to do without multiple cheese and wine parties.
The government was trying to make policies that did affect the lives of tens of millions of people, whereas healthcare staff were (rightly) being lauded. Your implication that the government did not make 'actual' life-and-death decisions is hideously crass.
As I said repeatedly at the time: I'm glad I wasn't the one having to make decisions over Covid.
I was working on two SAGE subcommittees throughout this period, advising on life and death decisions. I have some small awareness of the stresses. (I didn’t party.)
However, what I ask you, again, is what life and death decisions was Johnson’s personal photographer making?
Off topic, and not particularly heartwarming, apologies.
I spent Wednesday at the funeral of one of my students killed in a knife attack, and yesterday trying to pick up the pieces psychologically amongst the student’s close friends who are dealing with the trauma whilst preparing to sit their GCSEs in a couple of months.
The student’s death itself was tragic and perhaps not preventable regardless of the support that might have been in place in previous years.
But two things stand out for me within the education system:
1. There is almost nothing left outside the school gates and the home that might provide an anchor to young people struggling to navigate their teenage years. In my Year 11 class alone I could probably list a third of the students who badly need mental health support, or a youth worker, or a kick up the backside, or a positive role model etc etc (mostly the first tbh). Probably a handful are at risk of the same fate of the student we commemorated on Weds. We know this in school but are powerless to do anything (more) about it.
I can recognise that local services are never perfect, but those who currently advocate lowering taxes bear direct responsibility for the decimation of support for young people at a local level, which increase the risk of tragedies like this.
2. The toll that is being placed on teachers and school leaders who have to operate in an environment I’ve just described is not sustainable. Both I and my boss on our senior leadership team shed tears of frustration yesterday as we discussed what more we can do to prevent a similar tragedy, and admitted to feeling a deep sense of futility and powerlessness. My boss is probably the strongest, most principled and most uncompromising school leader I have ever met. To hear her admit that she feels powerless to change things is shocking and depressing.
Again, I can recognise that more money won’t solve all the ills for young people at the moment, and can also recognise that education rightly wouldn’t be top priority for any spare funding at present.
But again, those advocating for a lower tax take bear direct responsibility for the sorts of decisions that are being made within schools that mean students are left to fend for themselves, with whatever imperfect support is available from home.
Lastly, I’m clear-eyed enough to see that education (and LA) funding will get worse rather than better in the next decade. On a personal level I’m left wondering whether, for my own self- preservation, I need to admit defeat and get out of the system.
Sorry for a long and fairly depressing post - this is more of a lament and part of my own grieving than anything else. Apologies for any self indulgence herein.
The only quibble I have with your excellent post is the idea that anyone advocating for lower tax bear some responsibility for your lack of funding.
It would be possible to cut taxes while diverting a much larger proportion of government spending towards younger people for a net positive effect. Just look at how health and social care spending (both more likely to be used by older people) has increased much faster than demographic change, even while spending on education has fallen.
Local Authority funding is one issue that no political party, north or south of the border, wants to address. It's where most of the cuts have fallen and I reckon a direct reason why central government spending is now coming under such pressure.
Thanks. And yes good point, and it was heartening to hear on the Private Eye podcast yesterday that the doctor who writes for them about the NHS was advocating for money to be diverted from health towards education (best bang of your buck in terms of prevention).
Part of the issue as well is down to the checks that have to be done for safeguarding, when I was younger for example I used to volunteer and help run a youth club organised by the local methodists. Would I do it now? Not a chance because it has now gone from a simple request asking if I would help to which the answer is yes....to fill out this form wait weeks while someone rifles through your life etc. It just isn't something I feel strongly enough to jump through the hoops for.
The same issue has caused many clubs that had junior sections to close them. People don't want to jump through the hoops of getting vetted and the clubs don't want to do all the work of appointing a safe guarding officer etc.
This alone has caused a drop in whats available to youths.
I'm surprised by this, I got an enhanced DBS check to do voluntary work with children and it was quick and completely painless.
I had to have one for a job it wasn't quick certainly. However having one to volunteer not going to bother. For many people its just the idea of having your life raked over to qualify when all they are trying to do is put back something. A lot of people also believe it is overkill.
The club i volunteered at all I was doing was setting up equipement like table tennis tables and breaking them down and clearing up at the end of the session as well as being present and defusing squabbles between the kids. The club was held in one big room with no hidden corners and a minimum of 3 adults present. Potential for abuse as close to zero as can be. Sheer beauracratic overkill
You are being utterly naive about how abusers work. They gravitate to places, where they can get close to children and be trusted. Then .....
Not at all, we constantly get stories of abuse however and all those abusers have been vetted. As you love to point out the met is full of vetted people. It does not seem to be working to prevent abuse as far as I can tell. It does however act as a barrier to entry for those that genuinely are inclined to volunteer.
For example in the youth club I volunteered at I knew all those kids already before I started there and most of the parents (small town cornwall ) because they all hung out round the harbour as did most of us young adults......so the check wouldn't have prevented a single thing. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Now what I would say is that their is definitely a case for those doing one on one sessions with kids or overnight stays like camping
Part of the problem with the Met as I have said repeatedly is that officers were NOT properly vetted or at all.
Vetting is not sufficient. But it is necessary. It provides some comfort but is not a substitute for keeping your eyes and ears open and using common-sense and care.
What you see now is dubious men gravitating to areas and sectors where there is no or inadequate vetting or any form of gatekeeping. Or where challenge is frowned on.
What is needed is to make the process quick and efficient. My experience with the process has been good. So not quite sure why you are facing such difficult bureaucratic checks.
Some delusional comments in here today by the Trump Cult . Trashing Biden who wants more aid to go to Ukraine and there’s tumbleweed when it comes to any criticism of the Putin lover Trump .
It’s the Biden admin asking Ukraine to stop attacking Russia and Russian infra. It’s not Trump
Some delusional comments in here today by the Trump Cult . Trashing Biden who wants more aid to go to Ukraine and there’s tumbleweed when it comes to any criticism of the Putin lover Trump .
Trump is not president, Biden is. It’s Biden who held up supplies of planes, gave relatively paltry supplies of Abrams and Bradley’s, prevaricated (and continues to) on supply of long range missiles. Let lend/lease expire completely unused. Has imposed multiple red lines on how Ukraine is allowed to fight. Failed to impose secondary sanctions that might have meaningfully impacted Russia’s industrial production and economy.
And let us not get started with his pre war “it depends what sort of invasion” nonsense. Truth is, had he moved American units in Ukraine in autumn 2021, this war would never have happened.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
A curry house take away meal costing much less than £200 according to the restaurant with about 15 people present. Lively party!
The Number Ten events sound just as boring; not the massive rave many make them out to be. Not really 'parties' in the way most people would like parties to be.
It was reported that traces of cocaine were found after two No. 10 Partygate events.
Off topic, and not particularly heartwarming, apologies.
I spent Wednesday at the funeral of one of my students killed in a knife attack, and yesterday trying to pick up the pieces psychologically amongst the student’s close friends who are dealing with the trauma whilst preparing to sit their GCSEs in a couple of months.
The student’s death itself was tragic and perhaps not preventable regardless of the support that might have been in place in previous years.
But two things stand out for me within the education system:
1. There is almost nothing left outside the school gates and the home that might provide an anchor to young people struggling to navigate their teenage years. In my Year 11 class alone I could probably list a third of the students who badly need mental health support, or a youth worker, or a kick up the backside, or a positive role model etc etc (mostly the first tbh). Probably a handful are at risk of the same fate of the student we commemorated on Weds. We know this in school but are powerless to do anything (more) about it.
I can recognise that local services are never perfect, but those who currently advocate lowering taxes bear direct responsibility for the decimation of support for young people at a local level, which increase the risk of tragedies like this.
2. The toll that is being placed on teachers and school leaders who have to operate in an environment I’ve just described is not sustainable. Both I and my boss on our senior leadership team shed tears of frustration yesterday as we discussed what more we can do to prevent a similar tragedy, and admitted to feeling a deep sense of futility and powerlessness. My boss is probably the strongest, most principled and most uncompromising school leader I have ever met. To hear her admit that she feels powerless to change things is shocking and depressing.
Again, I can recognise that more money won’t solve all the ills for young people at the moment, and can also recognise that education rightly wouldn’t be top priority for any spare funding at present.
But again, those advocating for a lower tax take bear direct responsibility for the sorts of decisions that are being made within schools that mean students are left to fend for themselves, with whatever imperfect support is available from home.
Lastly, I’m clear-eyed enough to see that education (and LA) funding will get worse rather than better in the next decade. On a personal level I’m left wondering whether, for my own self- preservation, I need to admit defeat and get out of the system.
Sorry for a long and fairly depressing post - this is more of a lament and part of my own grieving than anything else. Apologies for any self indulgence herein.
The only quibble I have with your excellent post is the idea that anyone advocating for lower tax bear some responsibility for your lack of funding.
It would be possible to cut taxes while diverting a much larger proportion of government spending towards younger people for a net positive effect. Just look at how health and social care spending (both more likely to be used by older people) has increased much faster than demographic change, even while spending on education has fallen.
Local Authority funding is one issue that no political party, north or south of the border, wants to address. It's where most of the cuts have fallen and I reckon a direct reason why central government spending is now coming under such pressure.
Thanks. And yes good point, and it was heartening to hear on the Private Eye podcast yesterday that the doctor who writes for them about the NHS was advocating for money to be diverted from health towards education (best bang of your buck in terms of prevention).
Part of the issue as well is down to the checks that have to be done for safeguarding, when I was younger for example I used to volunteer and help run a youth club organised by the local methodists. Would I do it now? Not a chance because it has now gone from a simple request asking if I would help to which the answer is yes....to fill out this form wait weeks while someone rifles through your life etc. It just isn't something I feel strongly enough to jump through the hoops for.
The same issue has caused many clubs that had junior sections to close them. People don't want to jump through the hoops of getting vetted and the clubs don't want to do all the work of appointing a safe guarding officer etc.
This alone has caused a drop in whats available to youths.
I'm surprised by this, I got an enhanced DBS check to do voluntary work with children and it was quick and completely painless.
I had to have one for a job it wasn't quick certainly. However having one to volunteer not going to bother. For many people its just the idea of having your life raked over to qualify when all they are trying to do is put back something. A lot of people also believe it is overkill.
The club i volunteered at all I was doing was setting up equipement like table tennis tables and breaking them down and clearing up at the end of the session as well as being present and defusing squabbles between the kids. The club was held in one big room with no hidden corners and a minimum of 3 adults present. Potential for abuse as close to zero as can be. Sheer beauracratic overkill
You are being utterly naive about how abusers work. They gravitate to places, where they can get close to children and be trusted. Then .....
Not at all, we constantly get stories of abuse however and all those abusers have been vetted. As you love to point out the met is full of vetted people. It does not seem to be working to prevent abuse as far as I can tell. It does however act as a barrier to entry for those that genuinely are inclined to volunteer.
For example in the youth club I volunteered at I knew all those kids already before I started there and most of the parents (small town cornwall ) because they all hung out round the harbour as did most of us young adults......so the check wouldn't have prevented a single thing. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Now what I would say is that their is definitely a case for those doing one on one sessions with kids or overnight stays like camping
Part of the problem with the Met as I have said repeatedly is that officers were NOT properly vetted or at all.
Vetting is not sufficient. But it is necessary. It provides some comfort but is not a substitute for keeping your eyes and ears open and using common-sense and care.
What you see now is dubious men gravitating to areas and sectors where there is no or inadequate vetting or any form of gatekeeping. Or where challenge is frowned on.
What is needed is to make the process quick and efficient. My experience with the process has been good. So not quite sure why you are facing such difficult bureaucratic checks.
The very act of figuring out the process and applying is itself a disincentive to volunteer. I can see Pagan's point.
It's obvious from what she has said that Angela Rayner had never even heard of CGT when she sold her house.
If it's now been checked and no tax is payble fair enough.
But isn't the much more important point how many houses are sold where CGT is payable but it is never declared (whether or not the vendor didn't know it was payable)?
Shouldn't the conveyancing solicitor have to report every house sale to HMRC with a box on the form saying whether it is believed to be the principal private residence - and if it's not HMRC can then send a letter to the vendor saying a sale has been reported and please give details for CGT.
The Lion is the simple truth a GE is different, proving the fact there is a broad hierarchy in elections (based on power and influence of the elected office) and this means you can’t compare shares from one part of a hierarchy with another, it’s daft. Not just pointless daft, but down a rabbit hole and out again as a fully signed up member of a “conspiracy of optimism or pessimism”, utterly brainwashed, daft.
Some delusional comments in here today by the Trump Cult . Trashing Biden who wants more aid to go to Ukraine and there’s tumbleweed when it comes to any criticism of the Putin lover Trump .
Trump is not president, Biden is. It’s Biden who held up supplies of planes, gave relatively paltry supplies of Abrams and Bradley’s, prevaricated (and continues to) on supply of long range missiles. Let lend/lease expire completely unused. Has imposed multiple red lines on how Ukraine is allowed to fight. Failed to impose secondary sanctions that might have meaningfully impacted Russia’s industrial production and economy.
And let us not get started with his pre war “it depends what sort of invasion” nonsense. Truth is, had he moved American units in Ukraine in autumn 2021, this war would never have happened.
Question:
Is Biden, in policy terms if not in propaganda terms, an isolationist US President?
Off topic, and not particularly heartwarming, apologies.
I spent Wednesday at the funeral of one of my students killed in a knife attack, and yesterday trying to pick up the pieces psychologically amongst the student’s close friends who are dealing with the trauma whilst preparing to sit their GCSEs in a couple of months.
The student’s death itself was tragic and perhaps not preventable regardless of the support that might have been in place in previous years.
But two things stand out for me within the education system:
1. There is almost nothing left outside the school gates and the home that might provide an anchor to young people struggling to navigate their teenage years. In my Year 11 class alone I could probably list a third of the students who badly need mental health support, or a youth worker, or a kick up the backside, or a positive role model etc etc (mostly the first tbh). Probably a handful are at risk of the same fate of the student we commemorated on Weds. We know this in school but are powerless to do anything (more) about it.
I can recognise that local services are never perfect, but those who currently advocate lowering taxes bear direct responsibility for the decimation of support for young people at a local level, which increase the risk of tragedies like this.
2. The toll that is being placed on teachers and school leaders who have to operate in an environment I’ve just described is not sustainable. Both I and my boss on our senior leadership team shed tears of frustration yesterday as we discussed what more we can do to prevent a similar tragedy, and admitted to feeling a deep sense of futility and powerlessness. My boss is probably the strongest, most principled and most uncompromising school leader I have ever met. To hear her admit that she feels powerless to change things is shocking and depressing.
Again, I can recognise that more money won’t solve all the ills for young people at the moment, and can also recognise that education rightly wouldn’t be top priority for any spare funding at present.
But again, those advocating for a lower tax take bear direct responsibility for the sorts of decisions that are being made within schools that mean students are left to fend for themselves, with whatever imperfect support is available from home.
Lastly, I’m clear-eyed enough to see that education (and LA) funding will get worse rather than better in the next decade. On a personal level I’m left wondering whether, for my own self- preservation, I need to admit defeat and get out of the system.
Sorry for a long and fairly depressing post - this is more of a lament and part of my own grieving than anything else. Apologies for any self indulgence herein.
The only quibble I have with your excellent post is the idea that anyone advocating for lower tax bear some responsibility for your lack of funding.
It would be possible to cut taxes while diverting a much larger proportion of government spending towards younger people for a net positive effect. Just look at how health and social care spending (both more likely to be used by older people) has increased much faster than demographic change, even while spending on education has fallen.
Local Authority funding is one issue that no political party, north or south of the border, wants to address. It's where most of the cuts have fallen and I reckon a direct reason why central government spending is now coming under such pressure.
Thanks. And yes good point, and it was heartening to hear on the Private Eye podcast yesterday that the doctor who writes for them about the NHS was advocating for money to be diverted from health towards education (best bang of your buck in terms of prevention).
Part of the issue as well is down to the checks that have to be done for safeguarding, when I was younger for example I used to volunteer and help run a youth club organised by the local methodists. Would I do it now? Not a chance because it has now gone from a simple request asking if I would help to which the answer is yes....to fill out this form wait weeks while someone rifles through your life etc. It just isn't something I feel strongly enough to jump through the hoops for.
The same issue has caused many clubs that had junior sections to close them. People don't want to jump through the hoops of getting vetted and the clubs don't want to do all the work of appointing a safe guarding officer etc.
This alone has caused a drop in whats available to youths.
I'm surprised by this, I got an enhanced DBS check to do voluntary work with children and it was quick and completely painless.
I had to have one for a job it wasn't quick certainly. However having one to volunteer not going to bother. For many people its just the idea of having your life raked over to qualify when all they are trying to do is put back something. A lot of people also believe it is overkill.
The club i volunteered at all I was doing was setting up equipement like table tennis tables and breaking them down and clearing up at the end of the session as well as being present and defusing squabbles between the kids. The club was held in one big room with no hidden corners and a minimum of 3 adults present. Potential for abuse as close to zero as can be. Sheer beauracratic overkill
Whilst I see your point on delays, I think you're being a bit naive about how grooming works.
It's generally not an opportunistic thing in the room. Bob builds a reputation as reliable and good with the kids - and the parents. Bob is always on time, very understanding when the kids have problems at home. Bob gave little Sam a lift home when his Mum's car broke down. But Bob has always had a second game.
Yeah, Bob has another agenda and so is highly motivated to get his clearance to volunteer with children. He is also very sneaky and so doesn't get caught, so he passes the bmvettung no problem...
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
You talk of a group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions. One of the most infamous Partygate events was that on 16 April 2021, which involved two leaving parties, one for James Slack, Boris Johnson's director of communications, and one for a personal photographer to Johnson. Was a personal photographer to Johnson making life-and-death decisions? (If so, that might explain some of the poor decisions the government made!)
Meanwhile, healthcare staff, who were making actual life-and-death decisions on a regular basis, somehow managed to do without multiple cheese and wine parties.
The government was trying to make policies that did affect the lives of tens of millions of people, whereas healthcare staff were (rightly) being lauded. Your implication that the government did not make 'actual' life-and-death decisions is hideously crass.
As I said repeatedly at the time: I'm glad I wasn't the one having to make decisions over Covid.
I was working on two SAGE subcommittees throughout this period, advising on life and death decisions. I have some small awareness of the stresses. (I didn’t party.)
However, what I ask you, again, is what life and death decisions was Johnson’s personal photographer making?
Congratulations. For that time you were effectively running the country.
Off topic, and not particularly heartwarming, apologies.
I spent Wednesday at the funeral of one of my students killed in a knife attack, and yesterday trying to pick up the pieces psychologically amongst the student’s close friends who are dealing with the trauma whilst preparing to sit their GCSEs in a couple of months.
The student’s death itself was tragic and perhaps not preventable regardless of the support that might have been in place in previous years.
But two things stand out for me within the education system:
1. There is almost nothing left outside the school gates and the home that might provide an anchor to young people struggling to navigate their teenage years. In my Year 11 class alone I could probably list a third of the students who badly need mental health support, or a youth worker, or a kick up the backside, or a positive role model etc etc (mostly the first tbh). Probably a handful are at risk of the same fate of the student we commemorated on Weds. We know this in school but are powerless to do anything (more) about it.
I can recognise that local services are never perfect, but those who currently advocate lowering taxes bear direct responsibility for the decimation of support for young people at a local level, which increase the risk of tragedies like this.
2. The toll that is being placed on teachers and school leaders who have to operate in an environment I’ve just described is not sustainable. Both I and my boss on our senior leadership team shed tears of frustration yesterday as we discussed what more we can do to prevent a similar tragedy, and admitted to feeling a deep sense of futility and powerlessness. My boss is probably the strongest, most principled and most uncompromising school leader I have ever met. To hear her admit that she feels powerless to change things is shocking and depressing.
Again, I can recognise that more money won’t solve all the ills for young people at the moment, and can also recognise that education rightly wouldn’t be top priority for any spare funding at present.
But again, those advocating for a lower tax take bear direct responsibility for the sorts of decisions that are being made within schools that mean students are left to fend for themselves, with whatever imperfect support is available from home.
Lastly, I’m clear-eyed enough to see that education (and LA) funding will get worse rather than better in the next decade. On a personal level I’m left wondering whether, for my own self- preservation, I need to admit defeat and get out of the system.
Sorry for a long and fairly depressing post - this is more of a lament and part of my own grieving than anything else. Apologies for any self indulgence herein.
The only quibble I have with your excellent post is the idea that anyone advocating for lower tax bear some responsibility for your lack of funding.
It would be possible to cut taxes while diverting a much larger proportion of government spending towards younger people for a net positive effect. Just look at how health and social care spending (both more likely to be used by older people) has increased much faster than demographic change, even while spending on education has fallen.
Local Authority funding is one issue that no political party, north or south of the border, wants to address. It's where most of the cuts have fallen and I reckon a direct reason why central government spending is now coming under such pressure.
Thanks. And yes good point, and it was heartening to hear on the Private Eye podcast yesterday that the doctor who writes for them about the NHS was advocating for money to be diverted from health towards education (best bang of your buck in terms of prevention).
Part of the issue as well is down to the checks that have to be done for safeguarding, when I was younger for example I used to volunteer and help run a youth club organised by the local methodists. Would I do it now? Not a chance because it has now gone from a simple request asking if I would help to which the answer is yes....to fill out this form wait weeks while someone rifles through your life etc. It just isn't something I feel strongly enough to jump through the hoops for.
The same issue has caused many clubs that had junior sections to close them. People don't want to jump through the hoops of getting vetted and the clubs don't want to do all the work of appointing a safe guarding officer etc.
This alone has caused a drop in whats available to youths.
I'm surprised by this, I got an enhanced DBS check to do voluntary work with children and it was quick and completely painless.
I had to have one for a job it wasn't quick certainly. However having one to volunteer not going to bother. For many people its just the idea of having your life raked over to qualify when all they are trying to do is put back something. A lot of people also believe it is overkill.
The club i volunteered at all I was doing was setting up equipement like table tennis tables and breaking them down and clearing up at the end of the session as well as being present and defusing squabbles between the kids. The club was held in one big room with no hidden corners and a minimum of 3 adults present. Potential for abuse as close to zero as can be. Sheer beauracratic overkill
You are being utterly naive about how abusers work. They gravitate to places, where they can get close to children and be trusted. Then .....
Not at all, we constantly get stories of abuse however and all those abusers have been vetted. As you love to point out the met is full of vetted people. It does not seem to be working to prevent abuse as far as I can tell. It does however act as a barrier to entry for those that genuinely are inclined to volunteer.
For example in the youth club I volunteered at I knew all those kids already before I started there and most of the parents (small town cornwall ) because they all hung out round the harbour as did most of us young adults......so the check wouldn't have prevented a single thing. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Now what I would say is that their is definitely a case for those doing one on one sessions with kids or overnight stays like camping
Part of the problem with the Met as I have said repeatedly is that officers were NOT properly vetted or at all.
Vetting is not sufficient. But it is necessary. It provides some comfort but is not a substitute for keeping your eyes and ears open and using common-sense and care.
What you see now is dubious men gravitating to areas and sectors where there is no or inadequate vetting or any form of gatekeeping. Or where challenge is frowned on.
What is needed is to make the process quick and efficient. My experience with the process has been good. So not quite sure why you are facing such difficult bureaucratic checks.
I think we both are in agreement that vulnerable people need protection from predators.
Our dispute is merely over how its done. I think DBS checks don't seem to be working to keep out predators as there seems no drop in cases since the scheme began. It has however created a drop in the number of volunteers and a drop in the number of clubs willing to admit non adults. An example was an archery club I was a member of. After the dbs scheme came in they decided to limit membership to over 18's because of it.
What the correct way of safeguarding is I have no idea but I think the DBS scheme causes more harm than good. In addition it gives a false sense of security to people. He must be ok as he will have been vetted sort of thing so parents aren't as alert.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
A curry house take away meal costing much less than £200 according to the restaurant with about 15 people present. Lively party!
The Number Ten events sound just as boring; not the massive rave many make them out to be. Not really 'parties' in the way most people would like parties to be.
Watch the Partygate dramadoc.
You are half-right. There were real parties at Number 10 with suitcases full of wine and karaoke machines, as well as the relatively tame affairs Boris attended. As I said earlier, if Boris had established the facts, drawn a line in the sand, and apologised, he would probably still be in Number 10 (assuming he did the same for the other scandals also). But instead, Boris issued a blanket denial because the rules do not apply to him.
Some delusional comments in here today by the Trump Cult . Trashing Biden who wants more aid to go to Ukraine and there’s tumbleweed when it comes to any criticism of the Putin lover Trump .
Who has got the GOP to block that aid in Congress.
In any event, it's a discussion not an order - and isn't going to stop Ukraine targeting Russian energy infrastructure (which is what Russia is doing to them).
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
You talk of a group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions. One of the most infamous Partygate events was that on 16 April 2021, which involved two leaving parties, one for James Slack, Boris Johnson's director of communications, and one for a personal photographer to Johnson. Was a personal photographer to Johnson making life-and-death decisions? (If so, that might explain some of the poor decisions the government made!)
Meanwhile, healthcare staff, who were making actual life-and-death decisions on a regular basis, somehow managed to do without multiple cheese and wine parties.
The government was trying to make policies that did affect the lives of tens of millions of people, whereas healthcare staff were (rightly) being lauded. Your implication that the government did not make 'actual' life-and-death decisions is hideously crass.
As I said repeatedly at the time: I'm glad I wasn't the one having to make decisions over Covid.
I was working on two SAGE subcommittees throughout this period, advising on life and death decisions. I have some small awareness of the stresses. (I didn’t party.)
However, what I ask you, again, is what life and death decisions was Johnson’s personal photographer making?
Congratulations. For that time you were effectively running the country.
We very definitely weren’t. Chris Whitty (or was it Vallance - I can’t remember now!) even had to write to us at one point to say, more or less, don’t be disheartened that the government keeps ignoring your advice, we do value you, honest.
Some delusional comments in here today by the Trump Cult . Trashing Biden who wants more aid to go to Ukraine and there’s tumbleweed when it comes to any criticism of the Putin lover Trump .
Trump is not president, Biden is. It’s Biden who held up supplies of planes, gave relatively paltry supplies of Abrams and Bradley’s, prevaricated (and continues to) on supply of long range missiles. Let lend/lease expire completely unused. Has imposed multiple red lines on how Ukraine is allowed to fight. Failed to impose secondary sanctions that might have meaningfully impacted Russia’s industrial production and economy.
And let us not get started with his pre war “it depends what sort of invasion” nonsense. Truth is, had he moved American units in Ukraine in autumn 2021, this war would never have happened.
I’ve been saying for a long time that the war is going badly for Ukraine, even at the risk of undermining PB morale
I said it from early last summer when I went to Ukraine and saw the injured soldiers and realised the simple fact: they don’t have enough men
However I always had one caveat. If Ukraine could take the war to Russia it could win. Kill Putin. Destroy the Russian navy. Sabotage factories. Take out the oil infrastructure, especially, so Putin runs out of money
But now Biden is telling them not to do the one thing that might force Putin to negotiate, or even win the war. After this, it’s possible Putin will feel emboldened to take all of eastern Ukraine maybe even Kyiv
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
You talk of a group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions. One of the most infamous Partygate events was that on 16 April 2021, which involved two leaving parties, one for James Slack, Boris Johnson's director of communications, and one for a personal photographer to Johnson. Was a personal photographer to Johnson making life-and-death decisions? (If so, that might explain some of the poor decisions the government made!)
Meanwhile, healthcare staff, who were making actual life-and-death decisions on a regular basis, somehow managed to do without multiple cheese and wine parties.
The government was trying to make policies that did affect the lives of tens of millions of people, whereas healthcare staff were (rightly) being lauded. Your implication that the government did not make 'actual' life-and-death decisions is hideously crass.
As I said repeatedly at the time: I'm glad I wasn't the one having to make decisions over Covid.
I was working on two SAGE subcommittees throughout this period, advising on life and death decisions. I have some small awareness of the stresses. (I didn’t party.)
However, what I ask you, again, is what life and death decisions was Johnson’s personal photographer making?
Congratulations. For that time you were effectively running the country.
We very definitely weren’t. Chris Whitty (or was it Vallance - I can’t remember now!) even had to write to us at one point to say, more or less, don’t be disheartened that the government keeps ignoring your advice, we do value you, honest.
It's obvious from what she has said that Angela Rayner had never even heard of CGT when she sold her house.
If it's now been checked and no tax is payble fair enough.
But isn't the much more important point how many houses are sold where CGT is payable but it is never declared (whether or not the vendor didn't know it was payable)?
Shouldn't the conveyancing solicitor have to report every house sale to HMRC with a box on the form saying whether it is believed to be the principal private residence - and if it's not HMRC can then send a letter to the vendor saying a sale has been reported and please give details for CGT.
That's true now, having moved in 2022, but it wasn't in the past, but I don't know when the rule change came in.
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
Some delusional comments in here today by the Trump Cult . Trashing Biden who wants more aid to go to Ukraine and there’s tumbleweed when it comes to any criticism of the Putin lover Trump .
Trump is not president, Biden is. It’s Biden who held up supplies of planes, gave relatively paltry supplies of Abrams and Bradley’s, prevaricated (and continues to) on supply of long range missiles. Let lend/lease expire completely unused. Has imposed multiple red lines on how Ukraine is allowed to fight. Failed to impose secondary sanctions that might have meaningfully impacted Russia’s industrial production and economy.
And let us not get started with his pre war “it depends what sort of invasion” nonsense. Truth is, had he moved American units in Ukraine in autumn 2021, this war would never have happened.
Question:
Is Biden, in policy terms if not in propaganda terms, an isolationist US President?
An interesting question. Biden let us not forget, advised Obama against killing Bin Laden, which was about the only thing Obama got right on foreign policy. He's a creature of the Cold War, he sees everything through the prism of de-escalation. But he doesn't understand that deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. The US policy on Ukraine is so muddled and I'm sure it's because he allowed himself to be bullied by Putin's nukes.
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
“the White House has grown increasingly frustrated by brazen attempts to stop Ukrainians dying”
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
Ukraine is not asking Europeans or Americans to fight and die there. It's asking for the tools to stop a genocide and is prepared to do the fighting and dying herself.
Some delusional comments in here today by the Trump Cult . Trashing Biden who wants more aid to go to Ukraine and there’s tumbleweed when it comes to any criticism of the Putin lover Trump .
Trump is not president, Biden is. It’s Biden who held up supplies of planes, gave relatively paltry supplies of Abrams and Bradley’s, prevaricated (and continues to) on supply of long range missiles. Let lend/lease expire completely unused. Has imposed multiple red lines on how Ukraine is allowed to fight. Failed to impose secondary sanctions that might have meaningfully impacted Russia’s industrial production and economy.
And let us not get started with his pre war “it depends what sort of invasion” nonsense. Truth is, had he moved American units in Ukraine in autumn 2021, this war would never have happened.
I’ve been saying for a long time that the war is going badly for Ukraine, even at the risk of undermining PB morale
I said it from early last summer when I went to Ukraine and saw the injured soldiers and realised the simple fact: they don’t have enough men
However I always had one caveat. If Ukraine could take the war to Russia it could win. Kill Putin. Destroy the Russian navy. Sabotage factories. Take out the oil infrastructure, especially, so Putin runs out of money
But now Biden is telling them not to do the one thing that might force Putin to negotiate, or even win the war. After this, it’s possible Putin will feel emboldened to take all of eastern Ukraine maybe even Kyiv
Keep an eye on bird flu while you're at it. Currently destroying seal populations in the S.Atlantic (96% of pups, apparently).
Off topic, and not particularly heartwarming, apologies.
I spent Wednesday at the funeral of one of my students killed in a knife attack, and yesterday trying to pick up the pieces psychologically amongst the student’s close friends who are dealing with the trauma whilst preparing to sit their GCSEs in a couple of months.
The student’s death itself was tragic and perhaps not preventable regardless of the support that might have been in place in previous years.
But two things stand out for me within the education system:
1. There is almost nothing left outside the school gates and the home that might provide an anchor to young people struggling to navigate their teenage years. In my Year 11 class alone I could probably list a third of the students who badly need mental health support, or a youth worker, or a kick up the backside, or a positive role model etc etc (mostly the first tbh). Probably a handful are at risk of the same fate of the student we commemorated on Weds. We know this in school but are powerless to do anything (more) about it.
I can recognise that local services are never perfect, but those who currently advocate lowering taxes bear direct responsibility for the decimation of support for young people at a local level, which increase the risk of tragedies like this.
2. The toll that is being placed on teachers and school leaders who have to operate in an environment I’ve just described is not sustainable. Both I and my boss on our senior leadership team shed tears of frustration yesterday as we discussed what more we can do to prevent a similar tragedy, and admitted to feeling a deep sense of futility and powerlessness. My boss is probably the strongest, most principled and most uncompromising school leader I have ever met. To hear her admit that she feels powerless to change things is shocking and depressing.
Again, I can recognise that more money won’t solve all the ills for young people at the moment, and can also recognise that education rightly wouldn’t be top priority for any spare funding at present.
But again, those advocating for a lower tax take bear direct responsibility for the sorts of decisions that are being made within schools that mean students are left to fend for themselves, with whatever imperfect support is available from home.
Lastly, I’m clear-eyed enough to see that education (and LA) funding will get worse rather than better in the next decade. On a personal level I’m left wondering whether, for my own self- preservation, I need to admit defeat and get out of the system.
Sorry for a long and fairly depressing post - this is more of a lament and part of my own grieving than anything else. Apologies for any self indulgence herein.
The only quibble I have with your excellent post is the idea that anyone advocating for lower tax bear some responsibility for your lack of funding.
It would be possible to cut taxes while diverting a much larger proportion of government spending towards younger people for a net positive effect. Just look at how health and social care spending (both more likely to be used by older people) has increased much faster than demographic change, even while spending on education has fallen.
Local Authority funding is one issue that no political party, north or south of the border, wants to address. It's where most of the cuts have fallen and I reckon a direct reason why central government spending is now coming under such pressure.
Thanks. And yes good point, and it was heartening to hear on the Private Eye podcast yesterday that the doctor who writes for them about the NHS was advocating for money to be diverted from health towards education (best bang of your buck in terms of prevention).
Part of the issue as well is down to the checks that have to be done for safeguarding, when I was younger for example I used to volunteer and help run a youth club organised by the local methodists. Would I do it now? Not a chance because it has now gone from a simple request asking if I would help to which the answer is yes....to fill out this form wait weeks while someone rifles through your life etc. It just isn't something I feel strongly enough to jump through the hoops for.
The same issue has caused many clubs that had junior sections to close them. People don't want to jump through the hoops of getting vetted and the clubs don't want to do all the work of appointing a safe guarding officer etc.
This alone has caused a drop in whats available to youths.
I'm surprised by this, I got an enhanced DBS check to do voluntary work with children and it was quick and completely painless.
I had to have one for a job it wasn't quick certainly. However having one to volunteer not going to bother. For many people its just the idea of having your life raked over to qualify when all they are trying to do is put back something. A lot of people also believe it is overkill.
The club i volunteered at all I was doing was setting up equipement like table tennis tables and breaking them down and clearing up at the end of the session as well as being present and defusing squabbles between the kids. The club was held in one big room with no hidden corners and a minimum of 3 adults present. Potential for abuse as close to zero as can be. Sheer beauracratic overkill
Whilst I see your point on delays, I think you're being a bit naive about how grooming works.
It's generally not an opportunistic thing in the room. Bob builds a reputation as reliable and good with the kids - and the parents. Bob is always on time, very understanding when the kids have problems at home. Bob gave little Sam a lift home when his Mum's car broke down. But Bob has always had a second game.
Yeah, Bob has another agenda and so is highly motivated to get his clearance to volunteer with children. He is also very sneaky and so doesn't get caught, so he passes the bmvettung no problem...
Yep - that's the in practice constant vigilance thing, isn't it?
It is important in practice that there be cross-cutting relationships such that no one potential victim is wholly dependent on a single adult, and relationships are segmented and somewhat disaggregated for any single minor across more than one adult.
As I see it, it's the same principle as managers not dating subordinates, counsellors / medics maintaining emotional distance from clients / patients, and landlords keeping relationships with tenants on a business basis.
None of it ever works 100%, but the aspiration sets the direction.
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
Ukraine is not asking Europeans or Americans to fight and die there. It's asking for the tools to stop a genocide and is prepared to do the fighting and dying herself.
“the White House has grown increasingly frustrated by brazen Ukrainians openly resisting mass rape and mutilation”
Not a fan of Andrea Leadsom but enjoyed this comment by her, as reported in today's Times -
"Andrea Leadsom said it best, scoffing on Times Radio at the “sudden wokeness” that provoked Simon Case, head of the civil service, and Richard Moore of MI6 to resign from the Garrick Club. I am, she said sweetly, “not that interested in men’s decisions to feel good about themselves”."
Case joined the Garrick because he thought it would be good for his career, and has now left for the same reason.
Just got a letter from the local Labour candidate for the general election.
I will mention 1 thing for lack of attention to detail - the local phone code is 01325 so an 0191 telephone number screams not local.
And an 01325 number would cost about £100 max between now and the election and would ensure you local candidate looks local (it would also allow you to filter any calls very quickly which is why we use local numbers).
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
The essential problem is that US arms supplies dried up shortly after Christmas.
US policy on Ukraine is, and has been since the start of the war, to use Ukraine as a tool to do as much damage as possible to Russia. The strategy remains for Ukraine to get just enough military hardware to keep the war ongoing (preferably with Russia on the offensive as much as possible, to maximise their casualties), but never enough to let them win.
It's unclear if they actively want Ukraine to never be too far on the front foot to reduce risk of nuclear escalation if Ukraine ever goes too far on the offensive, or if they simply don't care who eventually "wins", but it is clear that they are in no way interested in the war ending in Ukraine's favour at any particular point.
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
Ukraine is not asking Europeans or Americans to fight and die there. It's asking for the tools to stop a genocide and is prepared to do the fighting and dying herself.
“the White House has grown increasingly frustrated by brazen Ukrainians openly resisting mass rape and mutilation”
There is broadly political consensus on this in the US now too. Now that Haley is out the picture, all three remaining presidential candidates would prefer Russia retains its Crimean landbridge.
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
Ukraine is not asking Europeans or Americans to fight and die there. It's asking for the tools to stop a genocide and is prepared to do the fighting and dying herself.
For anyone wanting an actual update from an actual Ukrainian point of view, yesterday's Telegraph Ukraine the Latest podcast had an excellent interview with a senior Ukrainian politician/military figure:
Dom Nicholls interviews Colonel in the Security Service of Ukraine, and Secretary of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on National Security, Roman Kostenko.
Kharkiv electricity facilities hit by 15 ballistic missiles from Russia, plunging the city into total blackout. Water supply disrupted, no city transportation. Now more than ever, people of Ukraine urgently need your voices of support. https://twitter.com/maria_avdv/status/1771034616519933964
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
A curry house take away meal costing much less than £200 according to the restaurant with about 15 people present. Lively party!
The Number Ten events sound just as boring; not the massive rave many make them out to be. Not really 'parties' in the way most people would like parties to be.
It was reported that traces of cocaine were found after two No. 10 Partygate events.
"Traces"? Hah!
The Trump White House had a "Doctor Feelgood" dispensing everything from katamine down to anyone who wanted it.
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
Ukraine is not asking Europeans or Americans to fight and die there. It's asking for the tools to stop a genocide and is prepared to do the fighting and dying herself.
“the White House has grown increasingly frustrated by brazen Ukrainians openly resisting mass rape and mutilation”
A total guess but I imagine there are red lines set by Russia to avoid nuclear confrontation and Ukraine is crossing them with these attacks on Russia itself. So the US responds by withdrawing support for Ukraine permitting Russia to make gains to avoid such escalation.
“Helima Croft, a former CIA analyst now at RBC Capital Markets, recently noted that Ukraine had shown it could strike most of the oil export infrastructure in western Russia, putting about 60 per cent of the country’s exports at risk.
The US objections [to Ukraine’s brazen attacks on Russia] come as Biden faces a tough re-election battle this year with petrol prices on the rise, increasing almost 15 per cent this year to around $3.50 a gallon.
“Nothing terrifies a sitting American president more than a surge in pump prices during an election year,” said Bob McNally, president of consultancy Rapidan Energy and a former White House energy adviser.”
It looks so BAD. So craven, cowardly, selfish, short-sighted. All that pumped up talk about Ukraine in the State of the Union was just bloviated lies. In the end what really matters is keeping gas prices at $3.30 a gallon in Pennsylvania
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
Ukraine is not asking Europeans or Americans to fight and die there. It's asking for the tools to stop a genocide and is prepared to do the fighting and dying herself.
“the White House has grown increasingly frustrated by brazen Ukrainians openly resisting mass rape and mutilation”
A total guess but I imagine there are red lines set by Russia to avoid nuclear confrontation and Ukraine is crossing them with these attacks on Russia itself. So the US responds by withdrawing support for Ukraine permitting Russia to make gains to avoid such escalation.
The one thing that we can be sure of in any such confrontation is that despite activity and rhetoric between parties there are extensive back channel communications that are exactly designed to address points such as you make.
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
It was different at the start when it was exciting and we had memes and everything.
Now, it's just boring videos of mud and further contributions are starting to feel like good money after bad to some Western governments. Particularly the UK, who just aren’t that into it since Baldy Ben went out for a cheeky Nando's and never came back.
The Ukrainian government has also conducted itself with highly variable levels of rectitude and competence which is not helping their cause.
If Ukraine collapses then it is going to be millions more refugees/asylum seekers in Europe.
Just apply the Gaza precedent: order Poland and Hungary etc to close the borders, ignore all international obligations on refugees, and if challenged spout some bullshit about being concerned refugees might never get to go back once they've left.
THIS line from that FT article is quite mind boggling
“the White House has grown increasingly frustrated by brazen Ukrainian drone attacks”
You what? “Brazen”???
“The White House has grown increasingly frustrated by the brazen use of Spitfires in the Battle of Britain”
“The White House has grown increasingly frustrated by the brazen resistance tactics of the 300 Spartans”
Biden is pissed that Ukraine now has domestic drone capacity that has proven very capable at destroying Russian oil facilities. Taking capacity out the world system. Leading to higher oil prices. Leading to higher gasoline prices. In an election year, higher US pump prices are toxic.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
I fear your 'defence' is more political than it is epidemiological. It was a crass thing to do - and what happened was a heck of a lot more than a meal deal in an office.
You are moving your accusation from breaking the law to breaking wisdom criteria.
The key is did he break the law, not was he unwise? If we track back to Johnson it would appear he was both.
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
Ukraine is not asking Europeans or Americans to fight and die there. It's asking for the tools to stop a genocide and is prepared to do the fighting and dying herself.
“the White House has grown increasingly frustrated by brazen Ukrainians openly resisting mass rape and mutilation”
A total guess but I imagine there are red lines set by Russia to avoid nuclear confrontation and Ukraine is crossing them with these attacks on Russia itself. So the US responds by withdrawing support for Ukraine permitting Russia to make gains to avoid such escalation.
But attacking Russia directly is Ukraine’s only hope of stopping Russia’s slow, grinding destruction of Ukraine
Russia is now advancing on all fronts. And its missiles are raining down, unstopped, on Ukrainian cities. But Ukraine is not allowed to respond in kind. That would be “brazen”
This is America saying to Ukraine, “we want you to lose, but not too quickly, as that would look bad for us”
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
Ukraine is not asking Europeans or Americans to fight and die there. It's asking for the tools to stop a genocide and is prepared to do the fighting and dying herself.
“the White House has grown increasingly frustrated by brazen Ukrainians openly resisting mass rape and mutilation”
A total guess but I imagine there are red lines set by Russia to avoid nuclear confrontation and Ukraine is crossing them with these attacks on Russia itself. So the US responds by withdrawing support for Ukraine permitting Russia to make gains to avoid such escalation.
It's a clear nonsense though. Putin isn't going to risk the world (and his whole empire) being turned to glass because Ukraine has droned the CDUs at some refineries. The Ukrainian attacks have thus far only (temporarily) taken out Russia's production surplus of refined product, depriving them of the export earnings on the refining cracks. Small potatoes. There's no risk yet of Chechens rioting because they can't fill up their cars, yet alone Muskovites or the army being started of diesel and jet fuel.
Even if Russia ended up with a domestic refining shortage, it would be fairly trivial in the medium term for Indian shipments of refined product (produced from Russian crude) to be diverted to Russia rather than Europe/UK,
What we're really seeing is the Biden Admin's mask slipping. They do not want Ukraine to win, they do not want Russia to lose, and they care far more about global inflation than securing the Western international order.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
I think that's a misreading of him. People are allergic to Trump because he isn't allergic to Putin, but that doesn't mean that Trump is in Putin's pocket or would never see any advantage in humbling him.
If Ukraine collapses then it is going to be millions more refugees/asylum seekers in Europe.
Just apply the Gaza precedent: order Poland and Hungary etc to close the borders, ignore all international obligations on refugees, and if challenged spout some bullshit about being concerned refugees might never get to go back once they've left.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
A curry house take away meal costing much less than £200 according to the restaurant with about 15 people present. Lively party!
The Number Ten events sound just as boring; not the massive rave many make them out to be. Not really 'parties' in the way most people would like parties to be.
It was reported that traces of cocaine were found after two No. 10 Partygate events.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
Off topic, and not particularly heartwarming, apologies.
I spent Wednesday at the funeral of one of my students killed in a knife attack, and yesterday trying to pick up the pieces psychologically amongst the student’s close friends who are dealing with the trauma whilst preparing to sit their GCSEs in a couple of months.
The student’s death itself was tragic and perhaps not preventable regardless of the support that might have been in place in previous years.
But two things stand out for me within the education system:
1. There is almost nothing left outside the school gates and the home that might provide an anchor to young people struggling to navigate their teenage years. In my Year 11 class alone I could probably list a third of the students who badly need mental health support, or a youth worker, or a kick up the backside, or a positive role model etc etc (mostly the first tbh). Probably a handful are at risk of the same fate of the student we commemorated on Weds. We know this in school but are powerless to do anything (more) about it.
I can recognise that local services are never perfect, but those who currently advocate lowering taxes bear direct responsibility for the decimation of support for young people at a local level, which increase the risk of tragedies like this.
2. The toll that is being placed on teachers and school leaders who have to operate in an environment I’ve just described is not sustainable. Both I and my boss on our senior leadership team shed tears of frustration yesterday as we discussed what more we can do to prevent a similar tragedy, and admitted to feeling a deep sense of futility and powerlessness. My boss is probably the strongest, most principled and most uncompromising school leader I have ever met. To hear her admit that she feels powerless to change things is shocking and depressing.
Again, I can recognise that more money won’t solve all the ills for young people at the moment, and can also recognise that education rightly wouldn’t be top priority for any spare funding at present.
But again, those advocating for a lower tax take bear direct responsibility for the sorts of decisions that are being made within schools that mean students are left to fend for themselves, with whatever imperfect support is available from home.
Lastly, I’m clear-eyed enough to see that education (and LA) funding will get worse rather than better in the next decade. On a personal level I’m left wondering whether, for my own self- preservation, I need to admit defeat and get out of the system.
Sorry for a long and fairly depressing post - this is more of a lament and part of my own grieving than anything else. Apologies for any self indulgence herein.
The only quibble I have with your excellent post is the idea that anyone advocating for lower tax bear some responsibility for your lack of funding.
It would be possible to cut taxes while diverting a much larger proportion of government spending towards younger people for a net positive effect. Just look at how health and social care spending (both more likely to be used by older people) has increased much faster than demographic change, even while spending on education has fallen.
Local Authority funding is one issue that no political party, north or south of the border, wants to address. It's where most of the cuts have fallen and I reckon a direct reason why central government spending is now coming under such pressure.
Thanks. And yes good point, and it was heartening to hear on the Private Eye podcast yesterday that the doctor who writes for them about the NHS was advocating for money to be diverted from health towards education (best bang of your buck in terms of prevention).
Part of the issue as well is down to the checks that have to be done for safeguarding, when I was younger for example I used to volunteer and help run a youth club organised by the local methodists. Would I do it now? Not a chance because it has now gone from a simple request asking if I would help to which the answer is yes....to fill out this form wait weeks while someone rifles through your life etc. It just isn't something I feel strongly enough to jump through the hoops for.
The same issue has caused many clubs that had junior sections to close them. People don't want to jump through the hoops of getting vetted and the clubs don't want to do all the work of appointing a safe guarding officer etc.
This alone has caused a drop in whats available to youths.
I'm surprised by this, I got an enhanced DBS check to do voluntary work with children and it was quick and completely painless.
I had to have one for a job it wasn't quick certainly. However having one to volunteer not going to bother. For many people its just the idea of having your life raked over to qualify when all they are trying to do is put back something. A lot of people also believe it is overkill.
The club i volunteered at all I was doing was setting up equipement like table tennis tables and breaking them down and clearing up at the end of the session as well as being present and defusing squabbles between the kids. The club was held in one big room with no hidden corners and a minimum of 3 adults present. Potential for abuse as close to zero as can be. Sheer beauracratic overkill
Whilst I see your point on delays, I think you're being a bit naive about how grooming works.
It's generally not an opportunistic thing in the room. Bob builds a reputation as reliable and good with the kids - and the parents. Bob is always on time, very understanding when the kids have problems at home. Bob gave little Sam a lift home when his Mum's car broke down. But Bob has always had a second game.
Yeah, Bob has another agenda and so is highly motivated to get his clearance to volunteer with children. He is also very sneaky and so doesn't get caught, so he passes the bmvettung no problem...
It's certainly the case that, if someone has a completely clean record, they will get through vetting, and vetting is not the only precaution that needs to be taken.
But there are relatively few "new" older offenders - patterns of behaviour are quite persistent, and a lot of people have records that wouldn't allow them past vetting. I don't know if that nice man next door was caught in possession of materials 20 years ago - maybe his wife doesn't know either. Maybe he's lived in the area all his life - but something happened when he was at university or working as a lorry driver and away for a while. I don't really want to know - he's paid his debt to society and rebuilt his life. But I don't want him to become a scoutmaster and the fact it involve vetting means he probably won't try.
So it doesn't filter out everyone who presents a risk, but filtering out some is worth doing, isn't it?
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
The retreat from Afghanistan was essentially Trump's - Biden inherited the sharp end.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
Let us not forget that he's also allowed Iranian backed proxies to indefinitely shut the Suez to Western traffic!
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
You talk of a group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions. One of the most infamous Partygate events was that on 16 April 2021, which involved two leaving parties, one for James Slack, Boris Johnson's director of communications, and one for a personal photographer to Johnson. Was a personal photographer to Johnson making life-and-death decisions? (If so, that might explain some of the poor decisions the government made!)
Meanwhile, healthcare staff, who were making actual life-and-death decisions on a regular basis, somehow managed to do without multiple cheese and wine parties.
The government was trying to make policies that did affect the lives of tens of millions of people, whereas healthcare staff were (rightly) being lauded. Your implication that the government did not make 'actual' life-and-death decisions is hideously crass.
As I said repeatedly at the time: I'm glad I wasn't the one having to make decisions over Covid.
I was working on two SAGE subcommittees throughout this period, advising on life and death decisions. I have some small awareness of the stresses. (I didn’t party.)
However, what I ask you, again, is what life and death decisions was Johnson’s personal photographer making?
Congratulations. For that time you were effectively running the country.
We very definitely weren’t. Chris Whitty (or was it Vallance - I can’t remember now!) even had to write to us at one point to say, more or less, don’t be disheartened that the government keeps ignoring your advice, we do value you, honest.
To be fair, as you were one of the most pro-restrictions people I have ever heard from (needing to wear masks when taking a slash, wanting to close everything down for prolonged periods), it is hardly surprising the government ignored you!
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
Putin took the measure of Biden before making the decision to invade.
They had a summit meeting in Geneva several months before, and Putin worked out that the US wasn't going to do anything beyond the usual playbook of sanctions plus token military aid.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
The retreat from Afghanistan was essentially Trump's - Biden inherited the sharp end.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
A curry house take away meal costing much less than £200 according to the restaurant with about 15 people present. Lively party!
The Number Ten events sound just as boring; not the massive rave many make them out to be. Not really 'parties' in the way most people would like parties to be.
It was reported that traces of cocaine were found after two No. 10 Partygate events.
"Traces"? Hah!
The Trump White House had a "Doctor Feelgood" dispensing everything from katamine down to anyone who wanted it.
The least they could do. I suspect most people would opt for a daily dose of smack had they to work there.
The only excusable way for the Tories to change leader again, and for that leader to have any legitimacy, is to find a way of getting Boris back, then begging him to take it
That would involve a Tory MP standing down and Boris fighting a by-election. Boris would not win a by-election in any constituency in the UK at the moment.
Yes. Do you not think so? If that’s true, it’s not worth making him leader! But I’d have thought there was somewhere
I agree with those saying he'd not win a by-election anywhere at the moment.
The one route, though, would be to make him party leader and "PM designate" with an immediate general election. He'd have a reasonable chance of becoming an MP in a General Election as it's harder for parties to pour resources into a single seat, and turnout is higher so much harder to get the by-election swings which are based on a combination of switching and differential turnout.
It won't happen, though. Far too many Tory MPs are far too opposed to make it in any way credible. It's a fantasy for a certain type of Tory, but nothing more.
That’s a shame, because he is the only possible PM with any legitimacy, and the choice of people who voted Tory at the next GE
For all the guff about ‘we vote for an MP…’ changing PMs midterm for anything other than health reasons should mean a GE within six months. A party with Truss or Sunak as leader would not have won in 2019, so they had no right to be running the country
How does he have any legitimacy, having run away from Parliament ?
And how can you say who might be "the choice of people who voted Tory at the next GE" - or did you mean last GE ?
Because he won the last election
Yes, I meant last GE
Makes sense now. I don't really disagree - except that Boris forfeited any legitimacy by his subsequent actions.
🔺 BREAKING: Kate Forbes has suggested that Humza Yousaf lacks a “big vision” for Scotland and confirmed that she would likely run again to be leader of the SNP.
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
Ukraine is not asking Europeans or Americans to fight and die there. It's asking for the tools to stop a genocide and is prepared to do the fighting and dying herself.
“the White House has grown increasingly frustrated by brazen Ukrainians openly resisting mass rape and mutilation”
A total guess but I imagine there are red lines set by Russia to avoid nuclear confrontation and Ukraine is crossing them with these attacks on Russia itself. So the US responds by withdrawing support for Ukraine permitting Russia to make gains to avoid such escalation.
But attacking Russia directly is Ukraine’s only hope of stopping Russia’s slow, grinding destruction of Ukraine
Russia is now advancing on all fronts. And its missiles are raining down, unstopped, on Ukrainian cities. But Ukraine is not allowed to respond in kind. That would be “brazen”
This is America saying to Ukraine, “we want you to lose, but not too quickly, as that would look bad for us”
Nothing has changed with this war. Ukraine can't be allowed to 'win' because of the threat of nuclear escalation from Russia so all hopes in this respect are probably futile. The calculation on the part of the Russians is ultimately that, under the democrats, the west is weak and can be bullied and humiliated. Despite his numerous shortcomings this is a strong argument in favour of Trump's political style.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
I think that's a misreading of him. People are allergic to Trump because he isn't allergic to Putin, but that doesn't mean that Trump is in Putin's pocket or would never see any advantage in humbling him.
Exactly right. Trump is all about Trump. He is an enormous orange blob of male ego. He doesn’t talk chummily about Putin and Xi and Erdogan and the Korean freak because he actually likes them, nor is it cause he’s scared of them
He does it because he wants to be seen as a strongman akin to them, a potent world leader talking man to man with his equivalents
If any of them did anything to puncture that ego, he’d go after them. I could easily see him turning on Putin. Look how Trump talks about China NOW - not very friendly at all
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
Ukraine is not asking Europeans or Americans to fight and die there. It's asking for the tools to stop a genocide and is prepared to do the fighting and dying herself.
“the White House has grown increasingly frustrated by brazen Ukrainians openly resisting mass rape and mutilation”
A total guess but I imagine there are red lines set by Russia to avoid nuclear confrontation and Ukraine is crossing them with these attacks on Russia itself. So the US responds by withdrawing support for Ukraine permitting Russia to make gains to avoid such escalation.
But attacking Russia directly is Ukraine’s only hope of stopping Russia’s slow, grinding destruction of Ukraine
Russia is now advancing on all fronts. And its missiles are raining down, unstopped, on Ukrainian cities. But Ukraine is not allowed to respond in kind. That would be “brazen”
This is America saying to Ukraine, “we want you to lose, but not too quickly, as that would look bad for us”
Nothing has changed with this war. Ukraine can't be allowed to 'win' because of the threat of nuclear escalation from Russia so all hopes in this respect are probably futile. The calculation on the part of the Russians is ultimately that, under the democrats, the west is weak and can be bullied and humiliated. Despite his numerous shortcomings this is a strong argument in favour of Trump's political style.
Macron tried to copy Trump's style when talking about not ruling anything out but it lasted all of five minutes because he quickly started clarifying that he wasn't going to do anything escalatory.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
The retreat from Afghanistan was essentially Trump's - Biden inherited the sharp end.
Stop defending Biden. It’s pathetic
What's pathetic is your lack of knowledge about the end of the Afghan regime. Read up. Trump set it in motion. Biden then had to deal with the horrific fall-out of the US-backed regime giving up in seven days.
Trump also says that Biden left umpteen billions of dollars worth of kit for the Taliban to plunder. The number he uses is the total cost of everything spent in Afghanistan in twenty years. Fantasy stuff. Anything useful to the Taliban was either extracted or torched.
🔺 BREAKING: Kate Forbes has suggested that Humza Yousaf lacks a “big vision” for Scotland and confirmed that she would likely run again to be leader of the SNP.
His own MSPs challenging his policies in the chamber as well.
Knives are out.
Suspect Forbes is the candidate the unionists fear. Strongly pro independence and pro business. Could mop up a few Tory votes. She needs to handle the same-sex marriage question better but I assume she has figured that out by now.
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
Ukraine is not asking Europeans or Americans to fight and die there. It's asking for the tools to stop a genocide and is prepared to do the fighting and dying herself.
“the White House has grown increasingly frustrated by brazen Ukrainians openly resisting mass rape and mutilation”
A total guess but I imagine there are red lines set by Russia to avoid nuclear confrontation and Ukraine is crossing them with these attacks on Russia itself. So the US responds by withdrawing support for Ukraine permitting Russia to make gains to avoid such escalation.
But attacking Russia directly is Ukraine’s only hope of stopping Russia’s slow, grinding destruction of Ukraine
Russia is now advancing on all fronts. And its missiles are raining down, unstopped, on Ukrainian cities. But Ukraine is not allowed to respond in kind. That would be “brazen”
This is America saying to Ukraine, “we want you to lose, but not too quickly, as that would look bad for us”
Nothing has changed with this war. Ukraine can't be allowed to 'win' because of the threat of nuclear escalation from Russia so all hopes in this respect are probably futile. The calculation on the part of the Russians is ultimately that, under the democrats, the west is weak and can be bullied and humiliated. Despite his numerous shortcomings this is a strong argument in favour of Trump's political style.
Macron tried to copy Trump's style when talking about not ruling anything out but it lasted all of five minutes because he quickly started clarifying that he wasn't going to do anything escalatory.
Interestingly possible. France just doesn’t have the military might to pull it off, unlike the USA
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
The retreat from Afghanistan was essentially Trump's - Biden inherited the sharp end.
Stop defending Biden. It’s pathetic
What should Biden have done? Abrogated the treaty with the Taliban? In any case, did anyone really think the Karzai Government would have collapsed so quickly? Experience from South Vietnam might have suggested it was possible but I don't think most experts saw the well-equipped Afghan Army disintegrating the way it did.
I assume we've done last night's council byelections already?
But just in case, they were:
Lincolnshire: Tory hold but with huge churn - Con down 27%, Lab down 30%, Lincs independents and Lib Dems both contesting for first time and getting high 20s.
Not sure the 4th (which was an IND defence) has reported yet.
These continue to show a familiar pattern: Conservatives dropping just about everywhere, Lib Dems outperforming national polls and Labour underperforming national polls.
“Helima Croft, a former CIA analyst now at RBC Capital Markets, recently noted that Ukraine had shown it could strike most of the oil export infrastructure in western Russia, putting about 60 per cent of the country’s exports at risk.
The US objections [to Ukraine’s brazen attacks on Russia] come as Biden faces a tough re-election battle this year with petrol prices on the rise, increasing almost 15 per cent this year to around $3.50 a gallon.
“Nothing terrifies a sitting American president more than a surge in pump prices during an election year,” said Bob McNally, president of consultancy Rapidan Energy and a former White House energy adviser.”
It looks so BAD. So craven, cowardly, selfish, short-sighted. All that pumped up talk about Ukraine in the State of the Union was just bloviated lies. In the end what really matters is keeping gas prices at $3.30 a gallon in Pennsylvania
Why are you railing against that last 70 years of American foreign policy?
Trump also says that Biden left umpteen billions of dollars worth of kit for the Taliban to plunder. The number he uses is the total cost of everything spent in Afghanistan in twenty years. Fantasy stuff. Anything useful to the Taliban was either extracted or torched.
Ironic that you talk about fantasy numbers when Biden has done the same with respect to military aid for Ukraine.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Why would Putin worry about Trump in terms of invading Ukraine .
Trump had already shown he was a Putin lover . The lengths some go to in here in their defence of Trump is embarrassing.
It’s exactly the opposite. It’s people who are so wrapped up in their fear and loathing of Trump they refuse to admit Biden is a calamity when it comes to foreign policy
Macron is right. Ukraine is falling. The USA is not coming to its rescue. Putin will win, unless Europe *does something*
The essential problem is that people are quite happy with the theoretical idea of spending an unlimited amount of money on financial support for Ukraine (albeit without any associated tax increases), and taking in 'refugees', but they don't want to go and fight and die there. This strategy was obviously going to run in to problems/limits which have now been revealed.
Ukraine is not asking Europeans or Americans to fight and die there. It's asking for the tools to stop a genocide and is prepared to do the fighting and dying herself.
“the White House has grown increasingly frustrated by brazen Ukrainians openly resisting mass rape and mutilation”
A total guess but I imagine there are red lines set by Russia to avoid nuclear confrontation and Ukraine is crossing them with these attacks on Russia itself. So the US responds by withdrawing support for Ukraine permitting Russia to make gains to avoid such escalation.
But attacking Russia directly is Ukraine’s only hope of stopping Russia’s slow, grinding destruction of Ukraine
Russia is now advancing on all fronts. And its missiles are raining down, unstopped, on Ukrainian cities. But Ukraine is not allowed to respond in kind. That would be “brazen”
This is America saying to Ukraine, “we want you to lose, but not too quickly, as that would look bad for us”
Nothing has changed with this war. Ukraine can't be allowed to 'win' because of the threat of nuclear escalation from Russia so all hopes in this respect are probably futile. The calculation on the part of the Russians is ultimately that, under the democrats, the west is weak and can be bullied and humiliated. Despite his numerous shortcomings this is a strong argument in favour of Trump's political style.
There's one long term solution to this, and it is necessary but probably unpalatable in many places. That is for Europe (both the EU and non-EU members like the UK and Ukraine itself) to build up the military capability to be able to face Russia without American help.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
I think that's a misreading of him. People are allergic to Trump because he isn't allergic to Putin, but that doesn't mean that Trump is in Putin's pocket or would never see any advantage in humbling him.
Exactly right. Trump is all about Trump. He is an enormous orange blob of male ego. He doesn’t talk chummily about Putin and Xi and Erdogan and the Korean freak because he actually likes them, nor is it cause he’s scared of them
He does it because he wants to be seen as a strongman akin to them, a potent world leader talking man to man with his equivalents
If any of them did anything to puncture that ego, he’d go after them. I could easily see him turning on Putin. Look how Trump talks about China NOW - not very friendly at all
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
The retreat from Afghanistan was essentially Trump's - Biden inherited the sharp end.
Stop defending Biden. It’s pathetic
What's pathetic is your lack of knowledge about the end of the Afghan regime. Read up. Trump set it in motion. Biden then had to deal with the horrific fall-out of the US-backed regime giving up in seven days.
Trump also says that Biden left umpteen billions of dollars worth of kit for the Taliban to plunder. The number he uses is the total cost of everything spent in Afghanistan in twenty years. Fantasy stuff. Anything useful to the Taliban was either extracted or torched.
Not quite true they got all the Afghan army's stuff. So vehicles, helicopters and small arms.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
The retreat from Afghanistan was essentially Trump's - Biden inherited the sharp end.
Stop defending Biden. It’s pathetic
What's pathetic is your lack of knowledge about the end of the Afghan regime. Read up. Trump set it in motion. Biden then had to deal with the horrific fall-out of the US-backed regime giving up in seven days.
Trump also says that Biden left umpteen billions of dollars worth of kit for the Taliban to plunder. The number he uses is the total cost of everything spent in Afghanistan in twenty years. Fantasy stuff. Anything useful to the Taliban was either extracted or torched.
You’re just demented by your revulsion for Trump. Which, to an extent, I can understand even if I don’t share it. I dislike Trump but he doesn’t make me crazy with hatred
However your emotionality in this respect warps your otherwise good judgement. You propagandise
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
I think that's a misreading of him. People are allergic to Trump because he isn't allergic to Putin, but that doesn't mean that Trump is in Putin's pocket or would never see any advantage in humbling him.
Exactly right. Trump is all about Trump. He is an enormous orange blob of male ego. He doesn’t talk chummily about Putin and Xi and Erdogan and the Korean freak because he actually likes them, nor is it cause he’s scared of them
He does it because he wants to be seen as a strongman akin to them, a potent world leader talking man to man with his equivalents
If any of them did anything to puncture that ego, he’d go after them. I could easily see him turning on Putin. Look how Trump talks about China NOW - not very friendly at all
Stop arse-licking Trump. It’s pathetic.
lol
I just called him “an enormous orange blob of male ego”
I’m not a fan. Not a big Trumpite. However, unlike many on here I am able to see things objectively even if Trump is in the mix
Comments
For example in the youth club I volunteered at I knew all those kids already before I started there and most of the parents (small town cornwall
Now what I would say is that their is definitely a case for those doing one on one sessions with kids or overnight stays like camping
There were multiple Partygate events. Generally, they were earlier in the pandemic, when the risks were higher. They often involved people who had already met up for work purposes continuing to spend time together, so again the epidemiological risk there is small. However, on several occasions, teams from different parts of No. 10 who hadn’t been working on the same space got together, increasing the risk. Activities continued on often longer than the Currygate meal, increasing the risk. In some cases, those present got raucously drunk and made out with each other, increasing the risk. And, of course, multiple events, wine parties every Friday, increases the risk.
So, overall, no, you are completely wrong. The epidemiological risk of Partygate greatly exceeded that of Currygate.
Hasnt Trump said he will stop funding in its entirety if he is elected?
Yes, I meant last GE
Sir Keir staked his leadership on it. He offered to resign if found guilty of wrongdoing. He was cleared. Yet Josias would rather he was tried in the Court of Jessop – under laws of his own imagination.
What caused Boris to lose the PMship was lying to his MPs about Chris Pincher. (And if you think that was a nothing, would you have confidence in a boss who knowingly made a sex pest your line manager? How would you feel if your partner's boss did that to them?)
And what made him so vulnerable was lying in the chamber (where you don't tell lies, simple as) about what happened in Downing Street during lockdown. If those "special meetings" were OK, why did Boris lie about them? (Actually, there's a simple answer to that one, it's because that's what Boris always does about everything.)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/20/police-accused-of-attacking-jk-rowling-at-lgbt-event/
It's his willingness to spend money when a need for spending money is indicated, rather than penny-pinching and half measures.
It's his relatively simplistic approach - instead of getting tangled up with worrying about how the Russians might react, and trying to find them offramps, he had decided that he was opposed to what the Russians were doing and he was going to do what he could to stop them.
Just as with Brexit he didn't particularly give a damn about the details of the deal - but he knew that Britain needed one quickly. So he did what had to be done.
The leaders in charge now are overthinking things and half-arsing them.
As a result youve been starting to see more crude going east, less profit for Russia and a longer logistic chain for its army. I put refineries with capacity of around 1.6mm bbl of capacity within easy range, not counting the chance to knock out other units at the plants already hit. But there’s not been anything in a few days, now we know why.
There is of course a big weakness in Russia’s logistic chain if saboteurs are able to hit the main onshore crude pipelines at random points repeatedly. It hasn’t happened, presumably because Uncle Sam forbids it. But if the US isn’t providing more aid anyway, at what point does Kiev think, feck it we’ll fight with the only means we have available to us?
However, what I ask you, again, is what life and death decisions was Johnson’s personal photographer making?
Vetting is not sufficient. But it is necessary. It provides some comfort but is not a substitute for keeping your eyes and ears open and using common-sense and care.
What you see now is dubious men gravitating to areas and sectors where there is no or inadequate vetting or any form of gatekeeping. Or where challenge is frowned on.
What is needed is to make the process quick and efficient. My experience with the process has been good. So not quite sure why you are facing such difficult bureaucratic checks.
And let us not get started with his pre war “it depends what sort of invasion” nonsense. Truth is, had he moved American units in Ukraine in autumn 2021, this war would never have happened.
If it's now been checked and no tax is payble fair enough.
But isn't the much more important point how many houses are sold where CGT is payable but it is never declared (whether or not the vendor didn't know it was payable)?
Shouldn't the conveyancing solicitor have to report every house sale to HMRC with a box on the form saying whether it is believed to be the principal private residence - and if it's not HMRC can then send a letter to the vendor saying a sale has been reported and please give details for CGT.
The Lion is the simple truth a GE is different, proving the fact there is a broad hierarchy in elections (based on power and influence of the elected office) and this means you can’t compare shares from one part of a hierarchy with another, it’s daft. Not just pointless daft, but down a rabbit hole and out again as a fully signed up member of a “conspiracy of optimism or pessimism”, utterly brainwashed, daft.
Well ... the silver lining is that Rishi is more approved of than his party !
Is Biden, in policy terms if not in propaganda terms, an isolationist US President?
Edit: I found this online, https://www.reddit.com/r/flags/comments/ur3fv0/wales_flag_with_a_cat_this_is_one_of_my_first/ Not great work, but shows the idea.
Our dispute is merely over how its done. I think DBS checks don't seem to be working to keep out predators as there seems no drop in cases since the scheme began. It has however created a drop in the number of volunteers and a drop in the number of clubs willing to admit non adults. An example was an archery club I was a member of. After the dbs scheme came in they decided to limit membership to over 18's because of it.
What the correct way of safeguarding is I have no idea but I think the DBS scheme causes more harm than good. In addition it gives a false sense of security to people. He must be ok as he will have been vetted sort of thing so parents aren't as alert.
You are half-right. There were real parties at Number 10 with suitcases full of wine and karaoke machines, as well as the relatively tame affairs Boris attended. As I said earlier, if Boris had established the facts, drawn a line in the sand, and apologised, he would probably still be in Number 10 (assuming he did the same for the other scandals also). But instead, Boris issued a blanket denial because the rules do not apply to him.
In any event, it's a discussion not an order - and isn't going to stop Ukraine targeting Russian energy infrastructure (which is what Russia is doing to them).
I said it from early last summer when I went to Ukraine and saw the injured soldiers and realised the simple fact: they don’t have enough men
However I always had one caveat. If Ukraine could take the war to Russia it could win. Kill Putin. Destroy the Russian navy. Sabotage factories. Take out the oil infrastructure, especially, so Putin runs out of money
But now Biden is telling them not to do the one thing that might force Putin to negotiate, or even win the war. After this, it’s possible Putin will feel emboldened to take all of eastern Ukraine maybe even Kyiv
“the White House has grown increasingly frustrated by brazen Ukrainian drone attacks”
You what? “Brazen”???
“The White House has grown increasingly frustrated by the brazen use of Spitfires in the Battle of Britain”
“The White House has grown increasingly frustrated by the brazen resistance tactics of the 300 Spartans”
“the White House has grown increasingly frustrated by brazen attempts to stop Ukrainians dying”
It is important in practice that there be cross-cutting relationships such that no one potential victim is wholly dependent on a single adult, and relationships are segmented and somewhat disaggregated for any single minor across more than one adult.
As I see it, it's the same principle as managers not dating subordinates, counsellors / medics maintaining emotional distance from clients / patients, and landlords keeping relationships with tenants on a business basis.
None of it ever works 100%, but the aspiration sets the direction.
“the White House has grown increasingly frustrated by brazen Ukrainians openly resisting mass rape and mutilation”
I will mention 1 thing for lack of attention to detail - the local phone code is 01325 so an 0191 telephone number screams not local.
And an 01325 number would cost about £100 max between now and the election and would ensure you local candidate looks local (it would also allow you to filter any calls very quickly which is why we use local numbers).
It's unclear if they actively want Ukraine to never be too far on the front foot to reduce risk of nuclear escalation if Ukraine ever goes too far on the offensive, or if they simply don't care who eventually "wins", but it is clear that they are in no way interested in the war ending in Ukraine's favour at any particular point.
Dom Nicholls interviews Colonel in the Security Service of Ukraine, and Secretary of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on National Security, Roman Kostenko.
20 minutes.
https://youtu.be/HNbF_Aqruz0?t=2070
https://twitter.com/maria_avdv/status/1771034616519933964
The Trump White House had a "Doctor Feelgood" dispensing everything from katamine down to anyone who wanted it.
“Helima Croft, a former CIA analyst now at RBC Capital Markets, recently noted that Ukraine had shown it could strike most of the oil export infrastructure in western Russia, putting about 60 per cent of the country’s exports at risk.
The US objections [to Ukraine’s brazen attacks on Russia] come as Biden faces a tough re-election battle this year with petrol prices on the rise, increasing almost 15 per cent this year to around $3.50 a gallon.
“Nothing terrifies a sitting American president more than a surge in pump prices during an election year,” said Bob McNally, president of consultancy Rapidan Energy and a former White House energy adviser.”
It looks so BAD. So craven, cowardly, selfish, short-sighted. All that pumped up talk about Ukraine in the State of the Union was just bloviated lies. In the end what really matters is keeping gas prices at $3.30 a gallon in Pennsylvania
Now, it's just boring videos of mud and further contributions are starting to feel like good money after bad to some Western governments. Particularly the UK, who just aren’t that into it since Baldy Ben went out for a cheeky Nando's and never came back.
The Ukrainian government has also conducted itself with highly variable levels of rectitude and competence which is not helping their cause.
The key is did he break the law, not was he unwise? If we track back to Johnson it would appear he was both.
Russia is now advancing on all fronts. And its missiles are raining down, unstopped, on Ukrainian cities. But Ukraine is not allowed to respond in kind. That would be “brazen”
This is America saying to Ukraine, “we want you to lose, but not too quickly, as that would look bad for us”
Even if Russia ended up with a domestic refining shortage, it would be fairly trivial in the medium term for Indian shipments of refined product (produced from Russian crude) to be diverted to Russia rather than Europe/UK,
What we're really seeing is the Biden Admin's mask slipping. They do not want Ukraine to win, they do not want Russia to lose, and they care far more about global inflation than securing the Western international order.
Fair enough.
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
But there are relatively few "new" older offenders - patterns of behaviour are quite persistent, and a lot of people have records that wouldn't allow them past vetting. I don't know if that nice man next door was caught in possession of materials 20 years ago - maybe his wife doesn't know either. Maybe he's lived in the area all his life - but something happened when he was at university or working as a lorry driver and away for a while. I don't really want to know - he's paid his debt to society and rebuilt his life. But I don't want him to become a scoutmaster and the fact it involve vetting means he probably won't try.
So it doesn't filter out everyone who presents a risk, but filtering out some is worth doing, isn't it?
They had a summit meeting in Geneva several months before, and Putin worked out that the US wasn't going to do anything beyond the usual playbook of sanctions plus token military aid.
smack had they to work there.
I don't really disagree - except that Boris forfeited any legitimacy by his subsequent actions.
@timesscotland
🔺 BREAKING: Kate Forbes has suggested that Humza Yousaf lacks a “big vision” for Scotland and confirmed that she would likely run again to be leader of the SNP.
@BrianSpanner1
His own MSPs challenging his policies in the chamber as well.
Knives are out.
He does it because he wants to be seen as a strongman akin to them, a potent world leader talking man to man with his equivalents
If any of them did anything to puncture that ego, he’d go after them. I could easily see him turning on Putin. Look how Trump talks about China NOW - not very friendly at all
Trump also says that Biden left umpteen billions of dollars worth of kit for the Taliban to plunder. The number he uses is the total cost of everything spent in Afghanistan in twenty years. Fantasy stuff. Anything useful to the Taliban was either extracted or torched.
Interestingly possible. France just doesn’t have the military might to pull it off, unlike the USA
Trump had already shown he was a Putin lover . The lengths some go to in here in their defence of Trump is embarrassing.
But just in case, they were:
Lincolnshire: Tory hold but with huge churn - Con down 27%, Lab down 30%, Lincs independents and Lib Dems both contesting for first time and getting high 20s.
https://x.com/BritainElects/status/1770962886271123545?s=20
Cambridgeshire: Lib Dem gain off Con. But muddied by a new independent candidate who scored 27.3%. Lab down 7%.
https://x.com/BritainElects/status/1770958839891779741?s=20
Flintshire: Lab gain off Con. Another one complicated this time by a departing independent, and the Lib Dems standing and getting 12.8%
https://x.com/BritainElects/status/1770958317235372119?s=20
Not sure the 4th (which was an IND defence) has reported yet.
These continue to show a familiar pattern: Conservatives dropping just about everywhere, Lib Dems outperforming national polls and Labour underperforming national polls.
Here he is as Captain James T. Kirk after accidentally beaming down into Michael Fabricants wardrobe.
https://twitter.com/MyArrse/status/1771130872051188124
Delusional .
However your emotionality in this respect warps your otherwise good judgement. You propagandise
I just called him “an enormous orange blob of male ego”
I’m not a fan. Not a big Trumpite. However, unlike many on here I am able to see things objectively even if Trump is in the mix