Categories
Options
What Did It Know? When Did It Know It? – politicalbetting.com
What Did It Know? When Did It Know It? – politicalbetting.com
Senator Howard Baker’s question: “What did the President know and when did he know it?” went to the heart of the Watergate scandal. But it was another question, asked almost as an aside, which provided the damning evidence: the question to Alexander Butterfield, a Nixon aide, about what recording devices, in addition to the taped instructions given by Nixon to his secretary, there were in the White House. Those tapes provided the evidence that the conspiracy went right to the top and right from the start.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Partygate was less serious but also swept under the carpet to protect the establishment.
The Aberfan enquiry found noone guilty of anything.
Westminster politics is a sham.
Hardly. And it was a large factor in bringing down a PM.
When it comes to incidents (*not* events like the PO scandal), finding 'guilt' can be rather difficult, for they often have many causes. Someone may have done something wrong; in fact, many people may have done things wrong, but their failure alone is not to blame (see the Swiss cheese model).
There are many examples of this, and it leads to a question: what is more important? Learning what happened to prevent it happening again, or prosecuting everyone who might have played even a minor role in what happened?
Israel is (still) very, very angry. They have little respect for the Palestinians anyway - who they probably hold collectively culpable for Hamas being ensconced in Gaza in the first place - and it blinds them to any recklessness in their actions. And they don't care because they don't think they should have been there in the first place, and now they've attacked them they will experience their full unchained wrath in all its hideous glory and any amd all consequences are entirely on them.
Unfortunately, this has now gotten so severe that it's changed my mind on the issue. Dropping targeted ordinance on aid workers on a safe route and engineering famine as a weapon of war is not ok. And I talk as someone who holds no candle whatsoever for the Palestinians or the assortment of Islamists, Marxists and socialist workers who associate with them. They've lost their sense of proportion. They've lost their friends. Yes, there is antisemitism around but that's not a free pass to rebut any and all criticism of their state policy and military actions, particularly when it comes from their friends.
Israel might not care but they need to be made to care for their own sake: when you have clear splits at the top of the Tory party, Biden dropping ultimatums and calling for a ceasefire and even Trump telling you to pack it in you know you have a problem.
Events such as the Post Office scandal, and the Rotherham (and other towns) scandal, on the other hand, fall into a very different category. Here, that bad things happened isn’t really the story. Bad things happen all the time. The real story is the coverup, and the attitude of people in senior positions that failed to address or resolve what was happening, such that many other innocent people became involved that didn’t need to be, with often life-changing results. In these cases, it’s only by holding people individually accountable for what were egregious behaviours, that we both see closure for the victims and prevent such behaviours from becoming entrenched among especially senior people in large organisations. If, as described as eloquently as ever by Mrs @Cyclefree in the header, there was a long series of contempts of court by senior managers and lawyers involved, they it’s very much in the public interest to see them prosecuted for their actions. Trust in the court system demands it, especially for those involved, but also for the rest of us to know that ‘the system’ does’t randomly ruin people’s lives and get away with it.
I’m sure there have also been a number of war crimes committed by Ukranians in the last couple of years, but it doesn’t mean their overall aims are not just or that we should stop supporting them.
War is horrible, but also something that thankfully few of us in the West have experienced in our lives. But for some people in the world, most obviously the Ukranians and Israelis at the moment, it’s an existential threat.
Of course, it might just be that the Israelis have ceased to care what anyone else thinks, and are going to make life utter Hell for Hamas-controlled areas until they surrender and hand over their hostages and weapons. We already know that the Russians and Hamas don’t care what the rest of the world thinks about their behaviour, and see local civilians as fair game in their wars despite international agreements and understandings on such things.
This bears a certain resemblance to Mr Trump's lawyers losing sight of their responsibilities as "Officers of the Court", which include overriding duties of for example candour:
Officers of the court have legal and ethical obligations. They are tasked to participate to the best of their ability in the functioning of the judicial system to forge justice out of the application of the law and the simultaneous pursuit of the legitimate interests of all parties and the general good of society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_court
In the UK barristers are not OoCs; I'm not sure about solicitors.
At least a dozen of Trump's various legal representatives have now been sanctioned, punished or disbarred, and more are suspended whilst under investigation.
It remains to be seen if the regulation-of-lawyers works here in the Post Office case.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/04/04/ex-trump-doj-official-jeffrey-clark-violated-ethics-rules-panel-finds-here-are-all-the-former-presidents-lawyers-now-facing-consequences/
The procurement of crap IT systems happens all the time. But sending people to prison, seizing their property, ruining their lives, in some cases being responsible for their deaths are of a different order. Lawyers are the gatekeepers. So is government. They have special responsibilities. When they fail we must not turn away. They must be held to account.
It is important that the lawyers who so utterly disregarded their responsibilities are struck off so that other lawyers in a similar case realise that they can’t do this ( they should, of course, know already but it needs reinforcing, apparently). If they have actively misled the courts and facilitated miscarriages of justice they should go to jail.
The directors also have fiduciaries duties and have plainly breached them. They should be disbarred from ever being directors again and face prosecution if they have deliberately caused miscarriages of justice by instructing lies to be given under oath.
Those who lied under oath knowingly should be prosecuted.
If civil servants have allowed or instructed attempts to pervert the course of justice they should also be prosecuted. I think this will prove much more difficult to establish but there must be consequences for them too.
This is important not from a sense of vengeance or even to give closure to those whose lives were wreaked (although that is important) but to make it clear to all future lawyers, directors, civil servants and others that behaving in that way is not just morally wrong but will have personal consequences.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/04/police-scotland-extra-officers-deluge-hate-crime-complaints/
They’re paying the control room staff overtime just to log the thousands of complaints. How much more overtime is going to need to be paid to actually investigate them, and how will they prioritise all of this against what most of the Scottish public might see as more important things for police to be doing, and more important areas for the spending of public money?
Can we sue Yousless, and his friends in the Scottish Greens, Labour, and LDs, for wasting police time?
The tragedy is that the country’s international reputation is being trashed to try and save the career of its PM, who probably faces jail when this whole story ends, anyway, and for a strategy that won’t work on its own terms, has sown the discord that will fuel another generation of conflict, and still has the capacity to spiral into a wider conflict.
What government officials knew and how far they were involved in the cover up interests me greatly.
Vennells and Co do not strike me as people who would do all that they did without knowing that government had their backs. The government was not, IMO, an innocent party here.
That spiral doesn’t end.
There is already the BCS https://www.bcs.org/ but they have no explicit entry requirements other than financial, and anyone can call themselves an IT professional.
I want to see the top brass and the technical leads, senior project managers etc at Fujitsu and the PO “struck off” a register, just as the lawyers should be, in a way that means they end up answering helpdesk phones and fixing printers for a living.
And when Israel is losing the support of the likes of Nick Ferrari and Casino here, you know it's not going well.
Add to that the fact Bibi is a master of electoral cunning who's been written off and had more comebacks from oblivion than Sinatra
So not all is lost.
*) Jew have been the victim in the past, and it has not saved them. And make no mistake: this was not an attack on Israel, or Zionism, but Jews.
*) Morally they had the eight to react militarily (the question is then the scale of that reaction)
*) Netanyahu's internal political needs (and indeed his mindset) would not allow it.
Would Israel be in a 'better' place if they had not gone into Gaza? Would Hamas have staged other attacks? Would the missiles be coming over? Probably. Would the hostages have been released? Probably not. But their enemies abroad would be much weaker.
Netanyahu is critically damaging Israel and, by extension, Jews worldwide.
I should say, closer to home, Martin McGuiness and the late Dr Rev Ian Paisley deserve honourable mentions in this context as well.
The point about focussing on Vennells and a couple of others and letting those down the chain off the hook is a good one.
When are these people going to be held to account ?
This thread from Dan Neidle is pretty staggering too.
How is this still going on ?
https://x.com/danneidle/status/1775903101297610783?s=61
The problem is simple. It’s not lawyers or government or whatever.
Everyone at the decision making level had no interest in ethics. Or any desire to be associated with taking an ethical stand.
The chap you quote, wittering about “pots”, is fairly obviously trying to build a little sand castle around himself. To stop getting wet.
Their only duty was “to be a team player”. To be “a safe pair of hands”. Crimes and people destroyed were just something else to be.,, managed.
The banality of bankrupt managerialism.
The only way things will change? Someone at that level gets 20 years in prison for Misconduct in a Public Office. Imagine the squealing.
The C-E-Fucking-O more concerned about looking bad on Twatter than his fucking job.
Bernard Woolley: Well, I was just wondering if the minister was right, actually.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Very unlikely. What about?
Bernard Woolley: About ends and means. I mean, will I end up as a moral vacuum too?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Oh, I hope so, Bernard. If you work hard enough.
We now know what has long been suspected. There has been a long, protracted cover-up at the highest levels. It certainly goes to Board level and probably higher. Governments have been involved. All we need to establish now is the extent. In short, we need the Baker question asked.
No problem. Vennels is up soon. Ask her, and then the prosecutions can begin.
There is no need to wait until the Inquiry concludes. The evidence is out there. It's a legal matter now.
Here aiui we are much more about professional self-regulation, where the US system is more about recommendations-and-judicial-confirmation.
But the US has Judges as more flexibly aligned, and now sometimes politically committed, often politically committed, than here.
Pros and cons.
He had already announced himself as a stand-down at the next Election, BTW.
Have a nice day folks.
Ms Cyclefree’s header put me in mind of the quote attributed to Alan Bates in the recent TV documentary. “ we are just skint little people!”
Dumbocracy is here and sending dickpics.
I'm sure we will see more detail, which I look forward to seeing.
Alternatively, politics as a career attracts extrovert risk-takers. You don't have to be Boris, but it helps.
ETA: If you're missing the puns, just listen to any episodes of ISIHAC where Humph or Jack introduce Sven.
No one sane wants to be an MP, there are easier ways to make more money and easier ways to make the changes you wish to make...
So what you are left with are people are not particularly bright. But in this case I think William's penis was the only thing thinking when the photos were sent and everything followed on from his lack of thinking...
I now suspect by default, that these stories are the result of explicit targeting of individuals by foreign state actors.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68735706
Being blunt I don't think rewarding the franchisee by buying the business is going to solve the problem in the middle east. Heck I'm tempted to boycott them but then again I have a McDonalds roughly once a year so any boycott would go completely unnoticed.
Sure, most people have a self-serving side, but I really don't think that is the dominant motivation even in the political world.
There are plenty of people whose first reaction to anything is not "What's in it for me?", and some of these are in politics.
I will not be voting for my Tory MP, but I don't doubt their sincerity, just their judgement.
The conduct of the war appears to fall short of the standards that Israel should expect of itself. I do think that there's a difference in intent and scale when compared to, say, Russia in Ukraine or Syria.
The clearest failing is in not providing food, water and security to the Palestinian civilians in areas under its control. That is a direct Israeli responsibility as the occupying power.
After all, if high end lawyers can’t work that out at the Post Office…
There was a comment from a Labour source a few days back - their intake of Parliamentary candidates is almost entirely professional (ha) politicians.
That’s who the next parliament is going to be made of. Not bad people. Just lacking a range of experience.
The updated support levels are as follows:
Lab 45% (+1)
Cons 22% (-1)
Lib Dems 9% (-1)
Reform 13% (+1)
Greens 5% (=)
SNP 3% (=)
Others 3% (=)
Electoral calculus says this gives 500 labour seats. 55 tory seats and ZERO Reform seats.... that is nuts
I suspect you would have had your money's worth in tyres and brake pads alone without a discount.
If you are thinking of placing bets on this, you need to consider the likely impact of two large probabilities - swingback and tactical voting. They work in opposite directions, and you could get both, or neither, or one without the other. The difference they make is likely to be huge. I would say that at the extremes the Tories could be down to 25 seats, or finish on a relatively satisfactory 175.
The Betfair betting markets appear by and large to have factored this in.
Which begs the question why they couldn’t have done this months ago . I think we all know the answer there .
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-31/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-created-kill-zones-in-gaza-anyone-who-crosses-into-them-is-shot/0000018e-946c-d4de-afee-f46da9ee0000?utm_source=App_Share&utm_medium=iOS_Native
Whatever the other virtues of FPTP, that's a flaw in the system.
From observation I think that the smartest people work in the civil service and local government; they end up with massive influence and remain largely faceless and unknown in the public sphere.
The limits of a Con comeback can best be demonstrated with the fact that, take this average, assume a 5pt swing in polls (cutting Lab lead by 10pts), assume 50% Reform squeeze, and no progressive tactical voting, the result:
Con 245
Lab 339
LD 18
Nat 28
https://twitter.com/Dylan_Difford/status/1775846994331779472?t=Yb8lTR90K5U7Gd-QTSd1Nw&s=19
Also: dick pix took a lot longer to produce, even if one trotted down to Parrhasius's studio and asked him to dash one off. Besides, plenty of free dick pix in real life in the local gymnasium obvs.
Having people either laugh at you or go "eugh!" is not a good start. Not a good ending either, if it comes to it.
Just having the access and plausible sounding arguments.
Politicians seem very easy to steer, once you meet them.
I still feel slightly guilty about the ground nuts jape.
How's this for a funny one? I'm suing A Certain Company because they repeatedly attempted to swindle me. They've just applied to dismiss the case. The only reason they give is that they do not consider it to have merit. The real reason (and I am not making this up) is as they made clear when asking me for yet another extension for their reply is they have lost the paperwork...
The seat bands have offered much better value for some time, although much of that has now been snaffled.
The evidence points to your scenario, but that is so unbelievable I can't countenance it. Even when catastrophe looms they pull something out of the hat. Take last years locals, poor, but not the disaster forecast.
No one has voted yet and of those who vote most are not doing terribly badly, so in the privacy of the voting booth won't we reflect on our palatial home our prestige cars and Labour's VAT on school fees and think, nah, I'll give Rishi another punt.
Also some people have an in built ick about actual physical intimacy and prefer a stand off approach. Finally the prevalence of SM practices suggest some folks like being made to feel less than wholesome.
They were the two men most responsible for the orgy of violence NI endured for nearly 30 years. That they only ended it when they could get their mitts on power makes them grade "A" *****! Not fit to lick Mandela's boots.
You don't make peace by talking to your friends, you do it by talking to your enemies.
Do Tories do better as if they are getting booted out anyway, they get some sympathy vote?
Do Labour do better as voters want to be on the winning side?
Is the gap between the parties so big that even anti-Tory voters ignore tactical voting?
And most realistically, do the Tories decide for another roll of the dice and change leader thinking it can't be worse than this.
Realists? Yes
Cynics? Yes.
Utter bastards with whom business had to be done? Yes.
Honourable? No.
But yes, future calls will be taped.
Then again, unless you are an utterly obsessive Tory, pledged to whatever it is you think today's Tory party stands for, why would you bother to vote either?
Over the period 2005 to 2019 covered by the scandal there were of course Labour and LD Business Secretaries, Lord Mandelson and Vince Cable as well as Tory Business Secretaries. What they knew and when, if anything