Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
If there is it'll be based on the constitution of the United Federation of Planets or some such. When I started with an SME tech company I was slightly taken aback to learn that the head of IT had named the servers after Star Trek characters. Props to him for leaning into the stereotype though.
That’s sacrilige. Everyone knows that servers should be named after Star Wars characters.
The goal being the elimination of Ukraine as a nation.
With the passage of US military aid for Kyiv imminent, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu says his army will step up attacks on Ukraine and won't let up until the goal of Moscow's brutal invasion is achieved: “We will increase the intensity of attacks on logistics centers and storage bases for Western weapons. The Russian Armed Forces will continue to carry out assigned tasks until the goals of the special operation are fully achieved,” Shoigu said. - RIA Novosti https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1782717692522184943
Love the idea that Russia has somehow been holding weapons back for this moment, as opposed to not having spent the last two years lobbing everything in the arsenal into Ukraine, just as quickly as the production lines and logistics lines could allow.
ATACMS, F16s, and Storm Shadow, are coming for you Putin. That’s a nice bridge you have there in Crimea, would be a real shame if anything were to happen to it.
Advocates within Germany of sending Taurus to Ukraine are using the ATACMs provision in the Bill to push Scholz again on providing Taurus. Fingers crossed.
In the best-case scenario this could end up with Mike Johnson rightly taking a lot of credit for bringing down the Kerch bridge after spending many months delaying support for Ukraine.
WTF? Anyone could register themselves as a scheme coordinator, draw any boundary they liked, and then were given details of everyone inside.
I was surprised to learn from the local police commander that they no longer work with NW (maybe that's just in Surrey?) - if you report something suspicious to NW, the police have no knowledge of it. Seems bonkers.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
She is not the heroine she tries to present herself as. Overpromoted, weak and from the evidence her main concern was her personal reputation not the wider interests of justice. Like many others she barely bothered to educate herself on the PO's prosecutorial functions and obligations.
The politics within the PO were poisonous and she was not very good at them so was outmanoeuvred. But had she been treated more gently by the Board I reckon she'd have continued and done what they wanted. Her explanations for what she actually wrote and her actions at the time were not really convincing.
Culture is a weird thing. We are all social animals at heart and it is unusual for someone to have the moral strength not to behave as those around them are doing. I am not sure in this case the question even crossed her mind.
Am I unusual then? I have not found this particularly hard though it is lonely and can be difficult. Though my job did put me in the privileged position of having to be the one asking difficult questions, which perhaps helped. But it is surely the essence of being a professional that you have to be able and willing to speak truth to power.
You are certainly right that organisations can easily develop a sort of ethical blindness so that people within it do not even realise that what they are doing is wrong. But that is why professionals like lawyers need to have that professional conscience.
It was telling that when counsel for the inquiry put the note to her in which Vennells wrote about Crichton putting her professional integrity above the interests of the firm, Crichton barely reacted or even agreed to it. It was almost as if she didn't realise that it was a compliment, even if Vennells didn't intend it as such.
And what the hell does that say about Vennells, a priest, that she thought having personal integrity was a criticism?! And the CoE wanted to make her a Bishop?!?
Sorry Cyclefree, I have to pick you up on one thing.
You believe this woman is genuinely Christian? Really?
Now where is that bridge I was looking to sell.....?
I called her a priest. Not a Christian. 😀
There's a subtle and important point there.
No one expects perfect behaviour from either a Priest or a Christian (except possibly the type of self-righteous oafish individual who expresses their personal anger by shouting things like "THAT'S NOT VERY CHRISTIAN !!!", when they normally mean "You did something I don't like.").
That is the very philosophical foundation of the faith, and as a basis I like it; it is a system of belief, aspiration and practice not a system of instructions or propositional logic. Individuals cannot be entirely judged as people on the basis of their behaviour or past behaviour. The Gospels are full of examples of that. There is only one judge of "who is a Christian".
Around that there are practicalities of humans running human organisations in this particular society, and how resilience, guard rails etc need to work. That is a different set of questions, requirements and practices.
On 'priesthood' or church leadership, at one end (eg Free Evangelical Churches) it is seen as a job like any other, for trained individuals. At the other (Roman Catholic) end aiui it is an ontological change for an individual, and is only reversed in extreme extremis - it might even formally require a referral to Rome. The Church of England, inevitably, has features of both.
For Paula Vennells, aiui she resigned her License (ie ' Bishop's permission to officiate') 3 years ago this week, and so can do no priestly duties. Since she was an unpaid office holder ('Non Stipendiary Minister'), I'm not sure what more can be done. In any case, I don't see anything further being done whilst the whole thing is still essentially sub-judice, since it would make no practical difference, and criminal charges are very possible.
One parallel case came up again this spring - Chris Brain former-leader of the Sheffield based "Nine O Clock Service" has been charged with various sexual offences dating back to 1983-1995, afaics after Me Too encouraged police complaints back in 2020 and there has been a 4-year police investigation.
Brain was permanently barred from officiating in the Church of England in 1995 by the Archbishop of York, yet UK media are still calling him a "Priest" not a "former Priest".
Thanks Matt.
It's hardly my subject, but I believe I am right in saying that Ms V had no pastoral experience, which makes it rather intriguing that she was apparently in line to become a bishop (before of course the PO scandal showed her in an unfavorale light.)
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
The problem is, that there really isn’t, and there should be. There’s various organisations such as BCS, PMP, CISM, but none are regulated in the same way as lawyers, doctors etc.
I want to see the senior PO IT and Fujitsu people struck off a professional register, such that they have no chance of a white-collar IT job, and are destined to spend the rest of their days either working in PC World selling extended warranties, working on the helpdesk logging tickets - or, horror of horrors, fixing printers. ..
I always associate Frank Field with the phrase "think the unthinkable". RIP.
Didn't the last Labour government ask him to do that, and then sack him when he did ?
Thinking the unthinkable was okay but they didn't want him to talk about it.
And then there are his views on the welfare state, which place him firmly in a category all of his own, certainly within Labour. Put most simply, he believes it degrades the very people it is meant to serve, that it creates a benefit-dependent, work-shy sub-class. 'It's our fault as politicians to have put temptation in front of people,' he has said. 'If the system pays people more on incapacity benefit [than jobseekers' allowance], it's human nature to claim the higher amount. We have to remove the incentive.' In short, Frank Field wants to sack the nanny from the nanny state.
It was because of these maverick ideas that he was invited, when New Labour was elected in 1997, to serve under Harriet Harman at the Department of Social Security to plan reform of the benefits system. Or, at least, that was why he thought he had been asked to do the job. The green paper he produced was certainly radical: he wanted more people to take out private pensions rather than depend on the state. He wanted an attack on benefit fraud and tighter controls on incapacity benefit as a way of getting more people back to work. He wanted the right to payments from the state to be matched with responsibilities by those receiving the cash. He made it clear that he detested means-testing, regarding it as demeaning and wanted, instead, flat-rate benefits.
He was universally respected, but had little interest in engaging with colleagues - when preparing a proposal, he'd shut himself away doing research and drafting until he came up with a finished proposal. He often lunched alone, staring into space as he munched and thought. He'd have been great in a think tank, but politics doesn't work if you don't give people buy-in.
He did good work with the Child Poverty Action Group before he became an MP.
Here's his account, sadly written very much wearing a politician's hat:
Afaik despite the seriousness of the charges, the NI media aren’t herding outside the Donaldson family home and the PSNI did not erect a blue tent at same. They obviously do things differently over there.
Well there’s reporting restrictions in place on Donaldson case for starters.
What are they as a matter of interest, and why would they stop voyeuristic ogling of the Donaldson house?
Nothing that could lead to the identification of the alleged victims or relationship to the accused.
From the version I heard from my Irish pal, I would be extremely surprised if the alleged victims would be in the vicinity of the Donaldson home.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
The problem is, that there really isn’t, and there should be. There’s various organisations such as BCS, PMP, CISM, but none are regulated in the same way as lawyers, doctors etc.
I want to see the senior PO IT and Fujitsu people struck off a professional register, such that they have no chance of a white-collar IT job, and are destined to spend the rest of their days either working in PC World selling extended warranties, working on the helpdesk logging tickets - or, horror of horrors, fixing printers.
Thanks. I've worked in a profession which did have pretty clear codes, and in another, related, one which didn't, until recently so that it has sort of developed one. Indeed I spent some time reading up and writing about the issue. Hence my interest.
Well it would be an understatement to say the Met came to the St George’s Day march with a very different, much more confrontational, attitude, compared to other recent marches in the city.
I think it was Tommy Robinson and his fascist mates who arrived with a much more confrontational attitude. They tried to break the agreed route, physically and aggressively.
Don't be too harsh on them, they are single handedly defending western civilisation from the barbarian hoard, armed only with an England shirt and a bottle of lager.
I love being English, its part of my identity (every bit as much as being Welsh is for a Welsh person, Sottish for a Scot etc). It annoys me when certain types sneer at the English identity while praising the Celtic versions.
And yet, watching clips of the idiots yesterday in London I can see why people feel the way they do, to some extent.
I've mentioned this one before, I think.
During a rugby world cup, many years back (seem to recall it was the one where Jonny Wilkinson rose to prominence in the national media) TfL announced, among other things, that any Black Cab driver decorating their cab with the Cross of St George would lose their license.
A Black Black Cab driver put a flag on the aerial and gave some very sensible interviews about it - he was English and wanted to reclaim the flag from the scum.
The policy from TfL collapsed and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown had an attack of the vapours.
Afaik despite the seriousness of the charges, the NI media aren’t herding outside the Donaldson family home and the PSNI did not erect a blue tent at same. They obviously do things differently over there.
Well there’s reporting restrictions in place on Donaldson case for starters.
What are they as a matter of interest, and why would they stop voyeuristic ogling of the Donaldson house?
Nothing that could lead to the identification of the alleged victims or relationship to the accused.
From the version I heard from my Irish pal, I would be extremely surprised if the alleged victims would be in the vicinity of the family home.
As Craig Murray can attest jigsaw identification can lead to a bad result.
Afaik despite the seriousness of the charges, the NI media aren’t herding outside the Donaldson family home and the PSNI did not erect a blue tent at same. They obviously do things differently over there.
Well there’s reporting restrictions in place on Donaldson case for starters.
What are they as a matter of interest, and why would they stop voyeuristic ogling of the Donaldson house?
Nothing that could lead to the identification of the alleged victims or relationship to the accused.
Afaik despite the seriousness of the charges, the NI media aren’t herding outside the Donaldson family home and the PSNI did not erect a blue tent at same. They obviously do things differently over there.
Well there’s reporting restrictions in place on Donaldson case for starters.
What are they as a matter of interest, and why would they stop voyeuristic ogling of the Donaldson house?
Nothing that could lead to the identification of the alleged victims or relationship to the accused.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
If there is it'll be based on the constitution of the United Federation of Planets or some such. When I started with an SME tech company I was slightly taken aback to learn that the head of IT had named the servers after Star Trek characters. Props to him for leaning into the stereotype though.
That’s sacrilige. Everyone knows that servers should be named after Star Wars characters.
"constitution of the United Federation of Planets"
Unless it turns out that the Dev Ops have decided on Klingon Promotion as the HR career template.
The more intellectual nerds use the names of Culture warships, of course.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
If there is it'll be based on the constitution of the United Federation of Planets or some such. When I started with an SME tech company I was slightly taken aback to learn that the head of IT had named the servers after Star Trek characters. Props to him for leaning into the stereotype though.
That’s sacrilige. Everyone knows that servers should be named after Star Wars characters.
Disney characters with the movies used to indicate location and in some cases purpose (where we have a lot in 1 location).
Started because I called the first once Scrooge (McDuck)
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
The problem is, that there really isn’t, and there should be. There’s various organisations such as BCS, PMP, CISM, but none are regulated in the same way as lawyers, doctors etc.
I want to see the senior PO IT and Fujitsu people struck off a professional register, such that they have no chance of a white-collar IT job, and are destined to spend the rest of their days either working in PC World selling extended warranties, working on the helpdesk logging tickets - or, horror of horrors, fixing printers. ..
...for Leon
Good! God! Man! There are limits, you know.
Crucification and impalement are one thing.
Working for one of the @SeanTs? Not quite cricket, that.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
If there is it'll be based on the constitution of the United Federation of Planets or some such. When I started with an SME tech company I was slightly taken aback to learn that the head of IT had named the servers after Star Trek characters. Props to him for leaning into the stereotype though.
That’s sacrilige. Everyone knows that servers should be named after Star Wars characters.
"constitution of the United Federation of Planets"
Unless it turns out that the Dev Ops have decided on Klingon Promotion as the HR career template.
The more intellectual nerds use the names of Culture warships, of course.
The helpdesk being christened Sleeper Service, presumably ?
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
If there is it'll be based on the constitution of the United Federation of Planets or some such. When I started with an SME tech company I was slightly taken aback to learn that the head of IT had named the servers after Star Trek characters. Props to him for leaning into the stereotype though.
That’s sacrilige. Everyone knows that servers should be named after Star Wars characters.
"constitution of the United Federation of Planets"
Unless it turns out that the Dev Ops have decided on Klingon Promotion as the HR career template.
The more intellectual nerds use the names of Culture warships, of course.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
If there is it'll be based on the constitution of the United Federation of Planets or some such. When I started with an SME tech company I was slightly taken aback to learn that the head of IT had named the servers after Star Trek characters. Props to him for leaning into the stereotype though.
That’s sacrilige. Everyone knows that servers should be named after Star Wars characters.
"constitution of the United Federation of Planets"
Unless it turns out that the Dev Ops have decided on Klingon Promotion as the HR career template.
The more intellectual nerds use the names of Culture warships, of course.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
The problem is, that there really isn’t, and there should be. There’s various organisations such as BCS, PMP, CISM, but none are regulated in the same way as lawyers, doctors etc.
I want to see the senior PO IT and Fujitsu people struck off a professional register, such that they have no chance of a white-collar IT job, and are destined to spend the rest of their days either working in PC World selling extended warranties, working on the helpdesk logging tickets - or, horror of horrors, fixing printers.
Problem with that is I have a default rule
Anyone in IT who is a member of such an organization shouldn’t be allowed through the door for an interview let alone given a contract /job.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
If there is it'll be based on the constitution of the United Federation of Planets or some such. When I started with an SME tech company I was slightly taken aback to learn that the head of IT had named the servers after Star Trek characters. Props to him for leaning into the stereotype though.
That’s sacrilige. Everyone knows that servers should be named after Star Wars characters.
"constitution of the United Federation of Planets"
Unless it turns out that the Dev Ops have decided on Klingon Promotion as the HR career template.
The more intellectual nerds use the names of Culture warships, of course.
The helpdesk being christened Sleeper Service, presumably ?
No. The idea that the Help Desk would turn out to have the largest military in Galaxy and solve all the problems in 2 pages sounds far fetched.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
If there is it'll be based on the constitution of the United Federation of Planets or some such. When I started with an SME tech company I was slightly taken aback to learn that the head of IT had named the servers after Star Trek characters. Props to him for leaning into the stereotype though.
That’s sacrilige. Everyone knows that servers should be named after Star Wars characters.
"constitution of the United Federation of Planets"
Unless it turns out that the Dev Ops have decided on Klingon Promotion as the HR career template.
The more intellectual nerds use the names of Culture warships, of course.
The helpdesk being christened Sleeper Service, presumably ?
No. The idea that the Help Desk would turn out to have the largest military in Galaxy and solve all the problems in 2 pages sounds far fetched.
As Leon would tell you, they're just waiting for AI to be fully implemented.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
If there is it'll be based on the constitution of the United Federation of Planets or some such. When I started with an SME tech company I was slightly taken aback to learn that the head of IT had named the servers after Star Trek characters. Props to him for leaning into the stereotype though.
That’s sacrilige. Everyone knows that servers should be named after Star Wars characters.
I always went for Dickens characters myself. 'Servers' might be pushing it a bit, but when I was setting up various headless computers running bits of kit during my PhD I had Micawber (running analyses for trace elements in the hope that 'something will turn up'), Carton (last experiment, hoped for: 'It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done') and Jarndyce, because it sounded a little bit like jaundice and I was certainly jaundiced at that point and thought the process would go on as long and fruitfully as Jarndyce versus Jarndyce!
I'm sure they'd all have behaved much better if I'd given them names from Star Wars Or if I'd had more of a clue what I was doing!
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
The problem is, that there really isn’t, and there should be. There’s various organisations such as BCS, PMP, CISM, but none are regulated in the same way as lawyers, doctors etc.
I want to see the senior PO IT and Fujitsu people struck off a professional register, such that they have no chance of a white-collar IT job, and are destined to spend the rest of their days either working in PC World selling extended warranties, working on the helpdesk logging tickets - or, horror of horrors, fixing printers.
Thanks. I've worked in a profession which did have pretty clear codes, and in another, related, one which didn't, until recently so that it has sort of developed one. Indeed I spent some time reading up and writing about the issue. Hence my interest.
IT is quite frangmented - into software developers, security managers, network managers, server managers, project managers etc, each of these have their own organisations, standards, exams etc, and each of the certifying organisations has their own ‘ethics’ section of the course.
But the job is such, that there’s no requirement to hold any particular cartification to take any particular job, although employers like to see certain qualifications and will sponsor employees to do the courses over time.
But it’s not like law or accountancy or medicine, where you’re very clearly either the qualified and certified professional, or a bag-carrier in training.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
The problem is, that there really isn’t, and there should be. There’s various organisations such as BCS, PMP, CISM, but none are regulated in the same way as lawyers, doctors etc.
I want to see the senior PO IT and Fujitsu people struck off a professional register, such that they have no chance of a white-collar IT job, and are destined to spend the rest of their days either working in PC World selling extended warranties, working on the helpdesk logging tickets - or, horror of horrors, fixing printers.
Problem with that is I have a default rule
Anyone in IT who is a member of such an organization shouldn’t be allowed through the door for an interview let alone given a contract /job.
PO and Fujitsu I can understand, but I thought BCS had a reasonable reputation?
Afaik despite the seriousness of the charges, the NI media aren’t herding outside the Donaldson family home and the PSNI did not erect a blue tent at same. They obviously do things differently over there.
Well there’s reporting restrictions in place on Donaldson case for starters.
What are they as a matter of interest, and why would they stop voyeuristic ogling of the Donaldson house?
Nothing that could lead to the identification of the alleged victims or relationship to the accused.
From the version I heard from my Irish pal, I would be extremely surprised if the alleged victims would be in the vicinity of the Donaldson home.
Which answers your question as to the lack of a blue tent at the address.
I always associate Frank Field with the phrase "think the unthinkable". RIP.
Didn't the last Labour government ask him to do that, and then sack him when he did ?
Thinking the unthinkable was okay but they didn't want him to talk about it.
And then there are his views on the welfare state, which place him firmly in a category all of his own, certainly within Labour. Put most simply, he believes it degrades the very people it is meant to serve, that it creates a benefit-dependent, work-shy sub-class. 'It's our fault as politicians to have put temptation in front of people,' he has said. 'If the system pays people more on incapacity benefit [than jobseekers' allowance], it's human nature to claim the higher amount. We have to remove the incentive.' In short, Frank Field wants to sack the nanny from the nanny state.
It was because of these maverick ideas that he was invited, when New Labour was elected in 1997, to serve under Harriet Harman at the Department of Social Security to plan reform of the benefits system. Or, at least, that was why he thought he had been asked to do the job. The green paper he produced was certainly radical: he wanted more people to take out private pensions rather than depend on the state. He wanted an attack on benefit fraud and tighter controls on incapacity benefit as a way of getting more people back to work. He wanted the right to payments from the state to be matched with responsibilities by those receiving the cash. He made it clear that he detested means-testing, regarding it as demeaning and wanted, instead, flat-rate benefits.
He was universally respected, but had little interest in engaging with colleagues - when preparing a proposal, he'd shut himself away doing research and drafting until he came up with a finished proposal. He often lunched alone, staring into space as he munched and thought. He'd have been great in a think tank, but politics doesn't work if you don't give people buy-in.
I had him down as a bit of a lone ranger. WRT conversations yesterday, he was 81.
Anyone wanting to watch an hour-long film about the rise and fall of Jeremy Corbyn and the forces which brought him down, here's your chance.
The "forces which brought him down" are identified as the British voters of course?
Nightmare GE scenario: Corbyn v Truss (Unless you're a Lib Dem, of course, and awaiting a breakthrough - but then they'd no doubt drop dull but sane big Ed Davey in favour of 'our next prime minister' jolly Jo Swinson)
Five horses have charged this morning through central London, including one covered in blood:
"A lioness hath whelped in the streets; And graves have yawn'd, and yielded up their dead; Fierce fiery warriors fought upon the clouds, In ranks and squadrons and right form of war, Which drizzled blood upon the Capitol; The noise of battle hurtled in the air, Horses did neigh, and dying men did groan, And ghosts did shriek and squeal about the streets."
"..voting is not a spiritual duty; it is a civic privilege.."
Trump's stunts seem to be falling very flat this time. Before the Bibles were the gold sneakers that got huge derision.
Not to mention his bragging about killing Roe v Wade, which has gone horribly wrong. He has reversed into saying it is now for each of the states to come up with their own abortion laws. Except, then Arizona reinstates a total anti-abortion law from 1864.
Abortion will motivate women to vote against Trump and drive turnout in November. The latest polling has Biden 16% ahead with women.
"..voting is not a spiritual duty; it is a civic privilege.."
Trump's stunts seem to be falling very flat this time. Before the Bibles were the gold sneakers that got huge derision.
Not to mention his bragging about killing Roe v Wade, which has gone horribly wrong. He has reversed into saying it is now for each of the states to come up with their own abortion laws. Except, then Arizona reinstates a total anti-abortion law from 1864.
Abortion will motivate women to vote against Trump and drive turnout in November. The latest polling has Biden 16% ahead with women.
I continue to think Trump will lose, but I am starting to think it might not even be close.
As the numbers go down the cost per refugee exported goes up to quite silly numbers. At the same time the deterrent effect is diminished because only a very small percentage of those who arrived yesterday, for example, will ever be sent and refugees may well feel it is worth the risk. It is noteworthy that when Chancellor Sunak himself resisted this policy on the basis of cost.
For this nonsense we have broken international law and frankly made ourselves look ridiculous. A very high percentage, I believe currently around 80%, of those arriving qualify for refugee status. Describing these people as "illegal refugees" contradicts the entire ethos of asylum. These people are fleeing persecution and are looking for a safe place to stay. That is what asylum is about. Moaning about people smugglers completely misses the point. This is how refugees have moved about from time immemorial.
I have previously expressed reservations about the viability of asylum in a world full of hell holes where international movement is so easy. I think we should be clear that such refugees are only welcome in the UK if we choose to take them and this is no longer a question of rights. But, whatever your views on asylum, this is not the answer.
Your last paragraph is where we should focus efforts.
Nevertheless when I hear organisations like the UN come straight out the gates to bash it, and politicians like Ken Clarke and Matthew Parris say on balance they support it, then I start to think there might be something in it.
Horses - 5 people injured, incident ongoing ETA: All horses recovered
The "blood on the white horse" awfully bright for blood in some photos - paint?
More likely blood against a white background on a sunny day. And possibly someone fiddling with the colour saturation. ETA I'll look silly if it turns out that what spooked the horses was an idiot with a tin of paint!
Quite why we still need soldiers on horses is another question.
"..voting is not a spiritual duty; it is a civic privilege.."
It will cut through to some. That Pastor is preaching a fairly traditional message for some evangelical traditions in the USA - separation between church and state argued from a basis of a theological belief in the opposed nature of "church" vs "world".
I'd like to know who the preacher is, and which church it is.
It's very opposed to Trump's (and his Supreme Court's) stance of undermining the church / state separation (eg abortion, school prayer etc), whilst pretending that that is not being done.
Re renting. I have rented around 11 (I think) properties in my younger days as a student and then a Post Doc. One final rent as a lecturer before we bought our current home. All of the previous rents I would not have regarded as my 'home' in a significant way as they were always going to be short term (non more than a year or two). This fitted the flexibility of the lifestyle. However for many of the renting population of the country (is it really 25 million) I expect they feel very differently about their rented properties, and do indeed call them their homes. I mean if you've lived in a council flat for years on end, it is your home. How we balance short term provision (for those who need it and want it), long term rents and the rights of the owners of the rents is the key.
I've rented virtually all my life - I know nothing about boilers, insulation, and suchlike and prefer to live somewhere where an agent or a serious BTL landlord looks after anything like that. I've had nothing but good experiences. But the rental market is split between professionally-run places with high standards and relatively high prices (I've been paying £1200/month for a two-room annex to a house in Godalming) and places which are badly-run but cheap. The latter have pretty poor protection for tenants and that's where reform is needed.
Also a renter, but would say the choice is more very high prices and acceptable standards, or high prices and badly run. Probably London specific, but the cheap options vs median salaries have dramatically disappeared over the last 20 years.
Unfortunately house purchase prices here are even more insane for houses. Flats are sometimes more reasonable but have significant speculative volatility attached with associated leasehold issues. Service charges trebling from £2-3k to £5-10k has not been unusual over the last decade, especially post grenfell.
Build more houses is the most important part, but rental and leasehold reform to rebalance things is also required.
"..voting is not a spiritual duty; it is a civic privilege.."
Hmm. There's something a bit Trumpian about his mannerisms and verbal delivery. Did Trump actually model his public-speaking techniques on the Evangelicals I wonder.
I've been working very hard, and found the political situation somewhat depressing, although I feel better after the US Congress finally did the right thing, WRT Ukraine.
"..voting is not a spiritual duty; it is a civic privilege.."
It will cut through to some. That Pastor is preaching a fairly traditional message for some evangelical traditions in the USA - separation between church and state argued from a basis of a theological belief in the opposed nature of "church" vs "world".
I'd like to know who the preacher is, and which church it is.
It's very opposed to Trump's (and his Supreme Court's) stance of undermining the church / state separation (eg abortion, school prayer etc), whilst pretending that that is not being done.
Re renting. I have rented around 11 (I think) properties in my younger days as a student and then a Post Doc. One final rent as a lecturer before we bought our current home. All of the previous rents I would not have regarded as my 'home' in a significant way as they were always going to be short term (non more than a year or two). This fitted the flexibility of the lifestyle. However for many of the renting population of the country (is it really 25 million) I expect they feel very differently about their rented properties, and do indeed call them their homes. I mean if you've lived in a council flat for years on end, it is your home. How we balance short term provision (for those who need it and want it), long term rents and the rights of the owners of the rents is the key.
I've rented virtually all my life - I know nothing about boilers, insulation, and suchlike and prefer to live somewhere where an agent or a serious BTL landlord looks after anything like that. I've had nothing but good experiences. But the rental market is split between professionally-run places with high standards and relatively high prices (I've been paying £1200/month for a two-room annex to a house in Godalming) and places which are badly-run but cheap. The latter have pretty poor protection for tenants and that's where reform is needed.
Also a renter, but would say the choice is more very high prices and acceptable standards, or high prices and badly run. Probably London specific, but the cheap options vs median salaries have dramatically disappeared over the last 20 years.
Unfortunately house purchase prices here are even more insane for houses. Flats are sometimes more reasonable but have significant speculative volatility attached with associated leasehold issues. Service charges trebling from £2-3k to £5-10k has not been unusual over the last decade, especially post grenfell.
Build more houses is the most important part, but rental and leasehold reform to rebalance things is also required.
Rising interest rates has driven up rents, owing to the model of collecting rent to pay the mortgage. It is a probably unsustainable business model. What you do about that is beyond me. Probably increase housing benefit to poor renters and hide the fact that you are actually subsidising landlords.
"..voting is not a spiritual duty; it is a civic privilege.."
Trump's stunts seem to be falling very flat this time. Before the Bibles were the gold sneakers that got huge derision.
Not to mention his bragging about killing Roe v Wade, which has gone horribly wrong. He has reversed into saying it is now for each of the states to come up with their own abortion laws. Except, then Arizona reinstates a total anti-abortion law from 1864.
Abortion will motivate women to vote against Trump and drive turnout in November. The latest polling has Biden 16% ahead with women.
Abortion will drive the Democratic vote, but concerns over the economy and immigration will drive the Republican vote.
Trump has a pretty strong lead in Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona. Win those, and he's on 268 EC votes.
"..voting is not a spiritual duty; it is a civic privilege.."
It will cut through to some. That Pastor is preaching a fairly traditional message for some evangelical traditions in the USA - separation between church and state argued from a basis of a theological belief in the opposed nature of "church" vs "world".
I'd like to know who the preacher is, and which church it is.
It's very opposed to Trump's (and his Supreme Court's) stance of undermining the church / state separation (eg abortion, school prayer etc), whilst pretending that that is not being done.
Indeed.
Go back one tweet - it's a Pastor Loran Livingston. Seems to be a standalone independent kirk.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
She is not the heroine she tries to present herself as. Overpromoted, weak and from the evidence her main concern was her personal reputation not the wider interests of justice. Like many others she barely bothered to educate herself on the PO's prosecutorial functions and obligations.
The politics within the PO were poisonous and she was not very good at them so was outmanoeuvred. But had she been treated more gently by the Board I reckon she'd have continued and done what they wanted. Her explanations for what she actually wrote and her actions at the time were not really convincing.
Culture is a weird thing. We are all social animals at heart and it is unusual for someone to have the moral strength not to behave as those around them are doing. I am not sure in this case the question even crossed her mind.
Am I unusual then? I have not found this particularly hard though it is lonely and can be difficult. Though my job did put me in the privileged position of having to be the one asking difficult questions, which perhaps helped. But it is surely the essence of being a professional that you have to be able and willing to speak truth to power.
You are certainly right that organisations can easily develop a sort of ethical blindness so that people within it do not even realise that what they are doing is wrong. But that is why professionals like lawyers need to have that professional conscience.
It was telling that when counsel for the inquiry put the note to her in which Vennells wrote about Crichton putting her professional integrity above the interests of the firm, Crichton barely reacted or even agreed to it. It was almost as if she didn't realise that it was a compliment, even if Vennells didn't intend it as such.
And what the hell does that say about Vennells, a priest, that she thought having personal integrity was a criticism?! And the CoE wanted to make her a Bishop?!?
Of course they wanted to make her a Bishop.
They knew she'd move heaven and earth to defend and protect the institution. Whatever the cost.
Re renting. I have rented around 11 (I think) properties in my younger days as a student and then a Post Doc. One final rent as a lecturer before we bought our current home. All of the previous rents I would not have regarded as my 'home' in a significant way as they were always going to be short term (non more than a year or two). This fitted the flexibility of the lifestyle. However for many of the renting population of the country (is it really 25 million) I expect they feel very differently about their rented properties, and do indeed call them their homes. I mean if you've lived in a council flat for years on end, it is your home. How we balance short term provision (for those who need it and want it), long term rents and the rights of the owners of the rents is the key.
I've rented virtually all my life - I know nothing about boilers, insulation, and suchlike and prefer to live somewhere where an agent or a serious BTL landlord looks after anything like that. I've had nothing but good experiences. But the rental market is split between professionally-run places with high standards and relatively high prices (I've been paying £1200/month for a two-room annex to a house in Godalming) and places which are badly-run but cheap. The latter have pretty poor protection for tenants and that's where reform is needed.
Also a renter, but would say the choice is more very high prices and acceptable standards, or high prices and badly run. Probably London specific, but the cheap options vs median salaries have dramatically disappeared over the last 20 years.
Unfortunately house purchase prices here are even more insane for houses. Flats are sometimes more reasonable but have significant speculative volatility attached with associated leasehold issues. Service charges trebling from £2-3k to £5-10k has not been unusual over the last decade, especially post grenfell.
Build more houses is the most important part, but rental and leasehold reform to rebalance things is also required.
Rising interest rates has driven up rents, owing to the model of collecting rent to pay the mortgage. It is a probably unsustainable business model. What you do about that is beyond me. Probably increase housing benefit to poor renters and hide the fact that you are actually subsidising landlords.
You tax landlords more, especially overseas landlords, you don't subsidise them further with housing benefit. Lots of world cities have gone for 10% additional purchase tax for overseas landlords, we have gone for 2%.
"..voting is not a spiritual duty; it is a civic privilege.."
It will cut through to some. That Pastor is preaching a fairly traditional message for some evangelical traditions in the USA - separation between church and state argued from a basis of a theological belief in the opposed nature of "church" vs "world".
I'd like to know who the preacher is, and which church it is.
It's very opposed to Trump's (and his Supreme Court's) stance of undermining the church / state separation (eg abortion, school prayer etc), whilst pretending that that is not being done.
Loran Livingston of NC.
Led an evangelical protest against Trump after Jan 6, so he's not just seen the light.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
She is not the heroine she tries to present herself as. Overpromoted, weak and from the evidence her main concern was her personal reputation not the wider interests of justice. Like many others she barely bothered to educate herself on the PO's prosecutorial functions and obligations.
The politics within the PO were poisonous and she was not very good at them so was outmanoeuvred. But had she been treated more gently by the Board I reckon she'd have continued and done what they wanted. Her explanations for what she actually wrote and her actions at the time were not really convincing.
Culture is a weird thing. We are all social animals at heart and it is unusual for someone to have the moral strength not to behave as those around them are doing. I am not sure in this case the question even crossed her mind.
Am I unusual then? I have not found this particularly hard though it is lonely and can be difficult. Though my job did put me in the privileged position of having to be the one asking difficult questions, which perhaps helped. But it is surely the essence of being a professional that you have to be able and willing to speak truth to power.
You are certainly right that organisations can easily develop a sort of ethical blindness so that people within it do not even realise that what they are doing is wrong. But that is why professionals like lawyers need to have that professional conscience.
It was telling that when counsel for the inquiry put the note to her in which Vennells wrote about Crichton putting her professional integrity above the interests of the firm, Crichton barely reacted or even agreed to it. It was almost as if she didn't realise that it was a compliment, even if Vennells didn't intend it as such.
And what the hell does that say about Vennells, a priest, that she thought having personal integrity was a criticism?! And the CoE wanted to make her a Bishop?!?
Of course they wanted to make her a Bishop.
They knew she'd move heaven and earth to defend and protect the institution. Whatever the cost.
Wrong.
They knew she'd move heaven and earth to defend and protect the current management of the institution. Whatever the cost. To the institution or anyone else.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
The problem is, that there really isn’t, and there should be. There’s various organisations such as BCS, PMP, CISM, but none are regulated in the same way as lawyers, doctors etc.
I want to see the senior PO IT and Fujitsu people struck off a professional register, such that they have no chance of a white-collar IT job, and are destined to spend the rest of their days either working in PC World selling extended warranties, working on the helpdesk logging tickets - or, horror of horrors, fixing printers.
Problem with that is I have a default rule
Anyone in IT who is a member of such an organization shouldn’t be allowed through the door for an interview let alone given a contract /job.
PO and Fujitsu I can understand, but I thought BCS had a reasonable reputation?
You don’t need it to get work and the people who have it seem to be a certain “type”.
Susan Crichton saying that the PO made it impossible for her to do her job & the Vennells memo about her putting he integrity above the PO's demands puts her successors giving evidence in a difficult position.
If they say they could do the job it suggests that they have a lower/no integrity threshold. Tricky.
To get the £75 billion number, the government has assumed a baseline with spending frozen in cash terms and then added up all of the differences. If you instead assume a baseline of spending frozen as a % GDP, it's an extra £20 billion over 6 years. Details here... https://twitter.com/BenZaranko/status/1782891401635627112
If Labour had done what it should and attacked decades of Tory defence cuts, they'd not face this situation of arguing against Rishi's fictional pledges.
The purpose of the Rwanda nonsense isn't to get people to Rwanda or even deter more boat arrivals - it would be an obvious failure if those were its objectives.
It's goal, at which it has been largely succesful, is to focus attention on the relatively small number irregular maritime arrivals and away from the several million completely legal arrivals that the tories have had to sanction in order to ameliorate the completely forseeable economic consequences of Brexit. Looked at on those terms, it is succeeding and will save the tories some seats.
It's a cynical policy aimed to diguise previous catastrophic misjudgments, aimed at the elderly, racist and stupid. Those policies remain the singular political niche at which the tories excel.
I don't think that's true. "Maritime arrivals" came about because the airports/ports/chunnel terminals - and the cross-channel lorries that went with them - were closed during Covid and testing the Channel was the only alternative.
The people smugglers discovered it was a massive loophole. Whereas previously they'd only be able to get a handful in on a lorry, they suddenly discovered they could get dozens and dozens in on each boat. It was much safer than expected (low fatality rate - partly because they're escorted in for up to 50% of the way, and not intercepted the French side) and was far harder to police departures.
Any Government would have had a major political problem with it and be obliged to respond. Its alignment with Brexit is entirely coincidental and not causal, so this post simply reflects reflexive anti-Tory prejudice.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
There is more to the PO scandal than lawyers. What about accountancy and auditing and even commissioning computer systems? Corporate structure and relationships to government? The ease with which MPs were fobbed off?
Agreed. Lots of others share responsibility.
I was only mentioning lawyers because it is I think the first time I can remember that the workings of lawyers has been put under this level of public scrutiny in a case which is about the abuse of the legal system.
Lawyers are usually asking the questions not answering them. And as we can see some of them present a very sorry sight indeed when put on the receiving end.
I've been working very hard, and found the political situation somewhat depressing, although I feel better after the US Congress finally did the right thing, WRT Ukraine.
I don't owe you a lunch (I don't think) but I'd still fancy one with you!
Someone on twitter is saying it's only an extra £4.4bn a year by 2030. The £75bn extra figure is reached by comparing the new plan with a fictitious scenario of freezing defence spending in cash terms, and so bringing it to below the 2% target.
It's a long time since Labour were criticised for announcing an increase in NHS spending as a cumulative total, and standards in this regard have only deteriorated further.
In terms of putting Britain's defense industry on a "war footing" it's a bit anaemic. Which makes Labour's refusal to match it a bit concerning.
"..voting is not a spiritual duty; it is a civic privilege.."
Hmm. There's something a bit Trumpian about his mannerisms and verbal delivery. Did Trump actually model his public-speaking techniques on the Evangelicals I wonder.
Came across this (when checking the news re BR Birmingham New Street shutdown this morning). Anti-LTN thugs systematically stealing bollards and threatening the locals who complain - the locals like their LTN.
That's a ludicrously biased summary even of the piece as it reads, which itself shows considerable bias. Are the 'thugs' not 'local'? Or do you suppose Nigel Farage and Susan Hall are touring the country with a tow truck?
The purpose of the Rwanda nonsense isn't to get people to Rwanda or even deter more boat arrivals - it would be an obvious failure if those were its objectives.
It's goal, at which it has been largely succesful, is to focus attention on the relatively small number irregular maritime arrivals and away from the several million completely legal arrivals that the tories have had to sanction in order to ameliorate the completely forseeable economic consequences of Brexit. Looked at on those terms, it is succeeding and will save the tories some seats.
It's a cynical policy aimed to diguise previous catastrophic misjudgments, aimed at the elderly, racist and stupid. Those policies remain the singular political niche at which the tories excel.
I don't think that's true. "Maritime arrivals" came about because the airports/ports/chunnel terminals - and the cross-channel lorries that went with them - were closed during Covid and testing the Channel was the only alternative.
The people smugglers discovered it was a massive loophole. Whereas previously they'd only be able to get a handful in on a lorry, they suddenly discovered they could get dozens and dozens in on each boat. It was much safer than expected (low fatality rate - partly because they're escorted in for up to 50% of the way, and not intercepted the French side) and was far harder to police departures.
Any Government would have had a major political problem with it and be obliged to respond. Its alignment with Brexit is entirely coincidental and not causal, so this post simply reflects reflexive anti-Tory prejudice.
The huge majority of illegal immigrants in Britain entered the country lawfully and then overstayed their visas - nothing to do with small boats whatsoever.
The purpose of the Rwanda nonsense isn't to get people to Rwanda or even deter more boat arrivals - it would be an obvious failure if those were its objectives.
It's goal, at which it has been largely succesful, is to focus attention on the relatively small number irregular maritime arrivals and away from the several million completely legal arrivals that the tories have had to sanction in order to ameliorate the completely forseeable economic consequences of Brexit. Looked at on those terms, it is succeeding and will save the tories some seats.
It's a cynical policy aimed to diguise previous catastrophic misjudgments, aimed at the elderly, racist and stupid. Those policies remain the singular political niche at which the tories excel.
I don't think that's true. "Maritime arrivals" came about because the airports/ports/chunnel terminals - and the cross-channel lorries that went with them - were closed during Covid and testing the Channel was the only alternative.
The people smugglers discovered it was a massive loophole. Whereas previously they'd only be able to get a handful in on a lorry, they suddenly discovered they could get dozens and dozens in on each boat. It was much safer than expected (low fatality rate - partly because they're escorted in for up to 50% of the way, and not intercepted the French side) and was far harder to police departures.
Any Government would have had a major political problem with it and be obliged to respond. Its alignment with Brexit is entirely coincidental and not causal, so this post simply reflects reflexive anti-Tory prejudice.
East Kent resident here. That's not the case. The (Tory) County Council has been concerned about this for years prior to the pandemic. In 2018 there were 299 people intercepted in small boat crossings. That increased more than six-fold to 1,843 in 2019. The first recorded case of Covid anywhere in Europe was in January 2020.
The purpose of the Rwanda nonsense isn't to get people to Rwanda or even deter more boat arrivals - it would be an obvious failure if those were its objectives.
It's goal, at which it has been largely succesful, is to focus attention on the relatively small number irregular maritime arrivals and away from the several million completely legal arrivals that the tories have had to sanction in order to ameliorate the completely forseeable economic consequences of Brexit. Looked at on those terms, it is succeeding and will save the tories some seats.
It's a cynical policy aimed to diguise previous catastrophic misjudgments, aimed at the elderly, racist and stupid. Those policies remain the singular political niche at which the tories excel.
I don't think that's true. "Maritime arrivals" came about because the airports/ports/chunnel terminals - and the cross-channel lorries that went with them - were closed during Covid and testing the Channel was the only alternative.
The people smugglers discovered it was a massive loophole. Whereas previously they'd only be able to get a handful in on a lorry, they suddenly discovered they could get dozens and dozens in on each boat. It was much safer than expected (low fatality rate - partly because they're escorted in for up to 50% of the way, and not intercepted the French side) and was far harder to police departures.
Any Government would have had a major political problem with it and be obliged to respond. Its alignment with Brexit is entirely coincidental and not causal, so this post simply reflects reflexive anti-Tory prejudice.
The huge majority of illegal immigrants in Britain entered legally and then overstayed their visas - nothing to do with small boats whatsoever.
But that's whataboutism. It's not an either or.
Mass small boat arrivals of several hundred a day are a problem, and would have been so for Tony Blair too.
I've been working very hard, and found the political situation somewhat depressing, although I feel better after the US Congress finally did the right thing, WRT Ukraine.
I don't owe you a lunch (I don't think) but I'd still fancy one with you!
The purpose of the Rwanda nonsense isn't to get people to Rwanda or even deter more boat arrivals - it would be an obvious failure if those were its objectives.
It's goal, at which it has been largely succesful, is to focus attention on the relatively small number irregular maritime arrivals and away from the several million completely legal arrivals that the tories have had to sanction in order to ameliorate the completely forseeable economic consequences of Brexit. Looked at on those terms, it is succeeding and will save the tories some seats.
It's a cynical policy aimed to diguise previous catastrophic misjudgments, aimed at the elderly, racist and stupid. Those policies remain the singular political niche at which the tories excel.
I don't think that's true. "Maritime arrivals" came about because the airports/ports/chunnel terminals - and the cross-channel lorries that went with them - were closed during Covid and testing the Channel was the only alternative.
The people smugglers discovered it was a massive loophole. Whereas previously they'd only be able to get a handful in on a lorry, they suddenly discovered they could get dozens and dozens in on each boat. It was much safer than expected (low fatality rate - partly because they're escorted in for up to 50% of the way, and not intercepted the French side) and was far harder to police departures.
Any Government would have had a major political problem with it and be obliged to respond. Its alignment with Brexit is entirely coincidental and not causal, so this post simply reflects reflexive anti-Tory prejudice.
East Kent resident here. That's not the case. The (Tory) County Council has been concerned about this for years prior to the pandemic. In 2018 there were 299 people intercepted in small boat crossings. That increased more than six-fold to 1,843 in 2019. The first recorded case of Covid anywhere in Europe was in January 2020.
It is the case. The number massively jumped from 2020 through to 2021 as the statistics demonstrate - it went from small-time to big league:
The purpose of the Rwanda nonsense isn't to get people to Rwanda or even deter more boat arrivals - it would be an obvious failure if those were its objectives.
It's goal, at which it has been largely succesful, is to focus attention on the relatively small number irregular maritime arrivals and away from the several million completely legal arrivals that the tories have had to sanction in order to ameliorate the completely forseeable economic consequences of Brexit. Looked at on those terms, it is succeeding and will save the tories some seats.
It's a cynical policy aimed to diguise previous catastrophic misjudgments, aimed at the elderly, racist and stupid. Those policies remain the singular political niche at which the tories excel.
I don't think that's true. "Maritime arrivals" came about because the airports/ports/chunnel terminals - and the cross-channel lorries that went with them - were closed during Covid and testing the Channel was the only alternative.
The people smugglers discovered it was a massive loophole. Whereas previously they'd only be able to get a handful in on a lorry, they suddenly discovered they could get dozens and dozens in on each boat. It was much safer than expected (low fatality rate - partly because they're escorted in for up to 50% of the way, and not intercepted the French side) and was far harder to police departures.
Any Government would have had a major political problem with it and be obliged to respond. Its alignment with Brexit is entirely coincidental and not causal, so this post simply reflects reflexive anti-Tory prejudice.
East Kent resident here. That's not the case. The (Tory) County Council has been concerned about this for years prior to the pandemic. In 2018 there were 299 people intercepted in small boat crossings. That increased more than six-fold to 1,843 in 2019. The first recorded case of Covid anywhere in Europe was in January 2020.
Didn't we pay the French shedloads to wall and fence off the roads near Calais, which then just diverted the flow to small boats?
Ooof. Bad move. It needs fixing. Although I criticised Sunak's knee-jerk, the defence problem needs fixing, and if that means spending money, then money must be spent. It's not a nice-to-have.
The purpose of the Rwanda nonsense isn't to get people to Rwanda or even deter more boat arrivals - it would be an obvious failure if those were its objectives.
It's goal, at which it has been largely succesful, is to focus attention on the relatively small number irregular maritime arrivals and away from the several million completely legal arrivals that the tories have had to sanction in order to ameliorate the completely forseeable economic consequences of Brexit. Looked at on those terms, it is succeeding and will save the tories some seats.
It's a cynical policy aimed to diguise previous catastrophic misjudgments, aimed at the elderly, racist and stupid. Those policies remain the singular political niche at which the tories excel.
I don't think that's true. "Maritime arrivals" came about because the airports/ports/chunnel terminals - and the cross-channel lorries that went with them - were closed during Covid and testing the Channel was the only alternative.
The people smugglers discovered it was a massive loophole. Whereas previously they'd only be able to get a handful in on a lorry, they suddenly discovered they could get dozens and dozens in on each boat. It was much safer than expected (low fatality rate - partly because they're escorted in for up to 50% of the way, and not intercepted the French side) and was far harder to police departures.
Any Government would have had a major political problem with it and be obliged to respond. Its alignment with Brexit is entirely coincidental and not causal, so this post simply reflects reflexive anti-Tory prejudice.
The huge majority of illegal immigrants in Britain entered the country lawfully and then overstayed their visas - nothing to do with small boats whatsoever.
If you've overstayed your visa, you got a visa. Different class of individual, I would think. Criminal record in home country checked, for one thing.
"..voting is not a spiritual duty; it is a civic privilege.."
Trump's stunts seem to be falling very flat this time. Before the Bibles were the gold sneakers that got huge derision.
Not to mention his bragging about killing Roe v Wade, which has gone horribly wrong. He has reversed into saying it is now for each of the states to come up with their own abortion laws. Except, then Arizona reinstates a total anti-abortion law from 1864.
Abortion will motivate women to vote against Trump and drive turnout in November. The latest polling has Biden 16% ahead with women.
Abortion will drive the Democratic vote, but concerns over the economy and immigration will drive the Republican vote.
Trump has a pretty strong lead in Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona. Win those, and he's on 268 EC votes.
Trump always saying how things have got worse over the past four years is not going to stand up. The US economy is the strongest in the world right now. Trump can't magic that away. Admittedly, inflation is rather stubborn, which is putting off any interest rate cuts. They will now happen nearer to election date. (BTW, four years ago yesterday was Trump's famous bleach wibbling on Covid.)
We haven't had any Arizona polling since the abortion ban law was introduced.
On immigration, there was a bi-partisan bill, killed at Trump's insistence because he couldn't have Biden getting a win. Everything from here on in down Mexico way is going to be laid at Trump's door. Biden has a massive spend advantage for adverts on this. The MAGA base will ignore that inconvenient truth; independents not so much.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
She is not the heroine she tries to present herself as. Overpromoted, weak and from the evidence her main concern was her personal reputation not the wider interests of justice. Like many others she barely bothered to educate herself on the PO's prosecutorial functions and obligations.
The politics within the PO were poisonous and she was not very good at them so was outmanoeuvred. But had she been treated more gently by the Board I reckon she'd have continued and done what they wanted. Her explanations for what she actually wrote and her actions at the time were not really convincing.
Culture is a weird thing. We are all social animals at heart and it is unusual for someone to have the moral strength not to behave as those around them are doing. I am not sure in this case the question even crossed her mind.
Am I unusual then? I have not found this particularly hard though it is lonely and can be difficult. Though my job did put me in the privileged position of having to be the one asking difficult questions, which perhaps helped. But it is surely the essence of being a professional that you have to be able and willing to speak truth to power.
You are certainly right that organisations can easily develop a sort of ethical blindness so that people within it do not even realise that what they are doing is wrong. But that is why professionals like lawyers need to have that professional conscience.
It was telling that when counsel for the inquiry put the note to her in which Vennells wrote about Crichton putting her professional integrity above the interests of the firm, Crichton barely reacted or even agreed to it. It was almost as if she didn't realise that it was a compliment, even if Vennells didn't intend it as such.
And what the hell does that say about Vennells, a priest, that she thought having personal integrity was a criticism?! And the CoE wanted to make her a Bishop?!?
Sorry Cyclefree, I have to pick you up on one thing.
You believe this woman is genuinely Christian? Really?
Now where is that bridge I was looking to sell.....?
I called her a priest. Not a Christian. 😀
There's a subtle and important point there.
No one expects perfect behaviour from either a Priest or a Christian (except possibly the type of self-righteous oafish individual who expresses their personal anger by shouting things like "THAT'S NOT VERY CHRISTIAN !!!", when they normally mean "You did something I don't like.").
That is the very philosophical foundation of the faith, and as a basis I like it; it is a system of belief, aspiration and practice not a system of instructions or propositional logic. Individuals cannot be entirely judged as people on the basis of their behaviour or past behaviour. The Gospels are full of examples of that. There is only one judge of "who is a Christian".
Around that there are practicalities of humans running human organisations in this particular society, and how resilience, guard rails etc need to work. That is a different set of questions, requirements and practices.
On 'priesthood' or church leadership, at one end (eg Free Evangelical Churches) it is seen as a job like any other, for trained individuals. At the other (Roman Catholic) end aiui it is an ontological change for an individual, and is only reversed in extreme extremis - it might even formally require a referral to Rome. The Church of England, inevitably, has features of both.
For Paula Vennells, aiui she resigned her License (ie ' Bishop's permission to officiate') 3 years ago this week, and so can do no priestly duties. Since she was an unpaid office holder ('Non Stipendiary Minister'), I'm not sure what more can be done. In any case, I don't see anything further being done whilst the whole thing is still essentially sub-judice, since it would make no practical difference, and criminal charges are very possible.
One parallel case came up again this spring - Chris Brain former-leader of the Sheffield based "Nine O Clock Service" has been charged with various sexual offences dating back to 1983-1995, afaics after Me Too encouraged police complaints back in 2020 and there has been a 4-year police investigation.
Brain was permanently barred from officiating in the Church of England in 1995 by the Archbishop of York, yet UK media are still calling him a "Priest" not a "former Priest".
Thanks Matt.
It's hardly my subject, but I believe I am right in saying that Ms V had no pastoral experience, which makes it rather intriguing that she was apparently in line to become a bishop (before of course the PO scandal showed her in an unfavorale light.)
Good comments.
"No pastoral experience" is not quite right. She was a Non-Stipendiary Minister, (sometimes termed "Self-Supporting Minister") which is what it says - basically Vicar level with no stipend. A "stipend" is an allowance to allow you to carry out a Ministry, which is generally a bit less than national median salary for someone with at least 2 degrees - the CofE correctly models that it wants people called by service, not driven by money. Half-way models might be part time or "house for duty".
Her training for the NSM role would be the equivalent of one year full time, usually done as part of a group over 3 years at ~20 weekends per annum plus days plus conferences plus placement plus coursework - in her case St Albans Ministry Course. I have friends who have done it - it is very demanding, like a part time MBA and then more practical experience on top.
She was Ordained in 2006, so has about 15 years of experience as a senior leader in a parish, which I would say is a lot of experience. That will have been preaching and leading services not much less than weekly, pastoral work in the parish, being on the PCC and in the leadership team, and so on. I would need to check Crockfords for full details.
NSMs are usually people who work full or part time with a church / community focused ministry. There is another version of similar-level-qualified people who are known as MSEs, Ministers in Secular Employment - who have a particular focus towards the 'world of work' rather than the parish / community. They are like Industrial Chaplains with no stipend, in a particular professional context. Such combinations are immensely creative, but also have two orthogonal sets of demands, which can be very difficult to manage together.
I'd say that she was shortlisted for Bp of London due to her strategic level experience in the Post Office plus her ordination, bearing in mind that the Diocese of London has thousands of staff, about 500 churches and a community of around a million people. In the event it went to the former Chief Nursing Officer for England, who was by then a Suffragan Bishop. I'd say that a jump form NSM to Senior Bishop especially London is just too much.
My not very evidenced thought on what went wrong for Vennells is that she perhaps took on too much - very heavy senior roles at both home and work is too much for anyone, imo. So when the crisis emerged in the Post Office, there was not enough head space to deal with it effectively. And something had to give, which was curiosity and attention to detail.
The purpose of the Rwanda nonsense isn't to get people to Rwanda or even deter more boat arrivals - it would be an obvious failure if those were its objectives.
It's goal, at which it has been largely succesful, is to focus attention on the relatively small number irregular maritime arrivals and away from the several million completely legal arrivals that the tories have had to sanction in order to ameliorate the completely forseeable economic consequences of Brexit. Looked at on those terms, it is succeeding and will save the tories some seats.
It's a cynical policy aimed to diguise previous catastrophic misjudgments, aimed at the elderly, racist and stupid. Those policies remain the singular political niche at which the tories excel.
I don't think that's true. "Maritime arrivals" came about because the airports/ports/chunnel terminals - and the cross-channel lorries that went with them - were closed during Covid and testing the Channel was the only alternative.
The people smugglers discovered it was a massive loophole. Whereas previously they'd only be able to get a handful in on a lorry, they suddenly discovered they could get dozens and dozens in on each boat. It was much safer than expected (low fatality rate - partly because they're escorted in for up to 50% of the way, and not intercepted the French side) and was far harder to police departures.
Any Government would have had a major political problem with it and be obliged to respond. Its alignment with Brexit is entirely coincidental and not causal, so this post simply reflects reflexive anti-Tory prejudice.
East Kent resident here. That's not the case. The (Tory) County Council has been concerned about this for years prior to the pandemic. In 2018 there were 299 people intercepted in small boat crossings. That increased more than six-fold to 1,843 in 2019. The first recorded case of Covid anywhere in Europe was in January 2020.
Didn't we pay the French shedloads to wall and fence off the roads near Calais, which then just diverted the flow to small boats?
More that the migrants piling onto lorries and (especially) the Channel Tunnel, were seen as affecting French national infrastructure. This triggered a serious response from the French state - the Channel Tunnel, in particular, is seen as national asset.
On the runaway horses, as they were military service horses one presumes that they can be subject to a court-martial for desertion.
Not to worry, Rishi will be around to lock the stable door some time this afternoon or possibly later tomorrow. After all that's his Rwanda policy in a nutshell...
Ooof. Bad move. It needs fixing. Although I criticised Sunak's knee-jerk, the defence problem needs fixing, and if that means spending money, then money must be spent. It's not a nice-to-have.
There is an urgent need to address our need for modern weapon systems, specifically drones and drone defence systems, without which it is now obvious no modern military can operate. The rate at which each version of these is becoming obsolete suggests that this is going to be a significant ongoing expenditure.
We have also discovered that having sufficient ammunition to fight a 2 week war in Europe is completely insufficient and far greater reserves are needed.
Its not easy to see how either of these can be met from current budgets which already seem overstretched and over committed.
And finally, and perhaps most critically of all, we may find in November that the defence pact on which we have relied since the end of WW 2 is no longer something we can count on.
Comments
It's hardly my subject, but I believe I am right in saying that Ms V had no pastoral experience, which makes it rather intriguing that she was apparently in line to become a bishop (before of course the PO scandal showed her in an unfavorale light.)
Here's his account, sadly written very much wearing a politician's hat:
https://www.poverty.ac.uk/system/files/video-transcripts/Frank-Field-1-his-role-in-CPAG.pdf
During a rugby world cup, many years back (seem to recall it was the one where Jonny Wilkinson rose to prominence in the national media) TfL announced, among other things, that any Black Cab driver decorating their cab with the Cross of St George would lose their license.
A Black Black Cab driver put a flag on the aerial and gave some very sensible interviews about it - he was English and wanted to reclaim the flag from the scum.
The policy from TfL collapsed and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown had an attack of the vapours.
Unless it turns out that the Dev Ops have decided on Klingon Promotion as the HR career template.
The more intellectual nerds use the names of Culture warships, of course.
Started because I called the first once Scrooge (McDuck)
Crucification and impalement are one thing.
Working for one of the @SeanTs? Not quite cricket, that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afBa86ZECRw
Anyone wanting to watch an hour-long film about the rise and fall of Jeremy Corbyn and the forces which brought him down, here's your chance.
Anyone in IT who is a member of such an organization shouldn’t be allowed through the door for an interview let alone given a contract /job.
I'm sure they'd all have behaved much better if I'd given them names from Star Wars
But the job is such, that there’s no requirement to hold any particular cartification to take any particular job, although employers like to see certain qualifications and will sponsor employees to do the courses over time.
But it’s not like law or accountancy or medicine, where you’re very clearly either the qualified and certified professional, or a bag-carrier in training.
https://twitter.com/RachelBitecofer/status/1782880462119289230
Getting quite a lot of attention.
"..voting is not a spiritual duty; it is a civic privilege.."
There's an interesting appreciation in the Church Times, archived here:
https://archive.ph/jVbRJ#selection-1085.5-1085.26
On the downside, I think I recall him being a bit of a bully with certain witnesses in select committees.
Will Suella be doing the rounds telling us that they’ve been harshly treated by the police ?
(Unless you're a Lib Dem, of course, and awaiting a breakthrough - but then they'd no doubt drop dull but sane big Ed Davey in favour of 'our next prime minister' jolly Jo Swinson)
"A lioness hath whelped in the streets;
And graves have yawn'd, and yielded up their dead;
Fierce fiery warriors fought upon the clouds,
In ranks and squadrons and right form of war,
Which drizzled blood upon the Capitol;
The noise of battle hurtled in the air,
Horses did neigh, and dying men did groan,
And ghosts did shriek and squeal about the streets."
Be simpler for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?"
ETA: All horses recovered
Not to mention his bragging about killing Roe v Wade, which has gone horribly wrong. He has reversed into saying it is now for each of the states to come up with their own abortion laws. Except, then Arizona reinstates a total anti-abortion law from 1864.
Abortion will motivate women to vote against Trump and drive turnout in November. The latest polling has Biden 16% ahead with women.
Nevertheless when I hear organisations like the UN come straight out the gates to bash it, and politicians like Ken Clarke and Matthew Parris say on balance they support it, then I start to think there might be something in it.
Quite why we still need soldiers on horses is another question.
I'd like to know who the preacher is, and which church it is.
It's very opposed to Trump's (and his Supreme Court's) stance of undermining the church / state separation (eg abortion, school prayer etc), whilst pretending that that is not being done.
Unfortunately house purchase prices here are even more insane for houses. Flats are sometimes more reasonable but have significant speculative volatility attached with associated leasehold issues. Service charges trebling from £2-3k to £5-10k has not been unusual over the last decade, especially post grenfell.
Build more houses is the most important part, but rental and leasehold reform to rebalance things is also required.
Unlike other countries, the soldiers doing the guarding are actually real, usable soldiers.
I've been working very hard, and found the political situation somewhat depressing, although I feel better after the US Congress finally did the right thing, WRT Ukraine.
https://www.centralnc.org/page/676
Trump has a pretty strong lead in Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona. Win those, and he's on 268 EC votes.
Which means Leon can't be too far away..
https://x.com/vicderbyshire/status/1783078092111507966
Go back one tweet - it's a Pastor Loran Livingston. Seems to be a standalone independent kirk.
https://twitter.com/hhendersonphd/status/1782349114560094460
https://www.centralnc.org/history
They knew she'd move heaven and earth to defend and protect the institution. Whatever the cost.
Led an evangelical protest against Trump after Jan 6, so he's not just seen the light.
They knew she'd move heaven and earth to defend and protect the current management of the institution. Whatever the cost. To the institution or anyone else.
Team Player.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/24/rishi-sunak-latest-news-heappey-defence-cameron-boats/
If they say they could do the job it suggests that they have a lower/no integrity threshold. Tricky.
Note, though - do not confuse León with Castilla. They really don't like it! It's Castilla y León. And a lot of the Leonese want out:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/29/spanish-province-passes-historic-motion-split-fictitious-region/
https://twitter.com/BenZaranko/status/1782891401635627112
The people smugglers discovered it was a massive loophole. Whereas previously they'd only be able to get a handful in on a lorry, they suddenly discovered they could get dozens and dozens in on each boat. It was much safer than expected (low fatality rate - partly because they're escorted in for up to 50% of the way, and not intercepted the French side) and was far harder to police departures.
Any Government would have had a major political problem with it and be obliged to respond. Its alignment with Brexit is entirely coincidental and not causal, so this post simply reflects reflexive anti-Tory prejudice.
I was only mentioning lawyers because it is I think the first time I can remember that the workings of lawyers has been put under this level of public scrutiny in a case which is about the abuse of the legal system.
Lawyers are usually asking the questions not answering them. And as we can see some of them present a very sorry sight indeed when put on the receiving end.
It's a long time since Labour were criticised for announcing an increase in NHS spending as a cumulative total, and standards in this regard have only deteriorated further.
In terms of putting Britain's defense industry on a "war footing" it's a bit anaemic. Which makes Labour's refusal to match it a bit concerning.
SKS breaks out in hives whenever the slightest hint of a crack of a dividing line opens up between his TTT Labour and the Tories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSuregWhlWk
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-24/ryanair-ceo-says-he-d-happily-offer-rwanda-deportation-flights
Or, alternatively, "Michael O'Leary spots an opportunity for publicity."
Mind you, HMG had better budget for the actual cost being somewhat higher than headline cost.
Mass small boat arrivals of several hundred a day are a problem, and would have been so for Tony Blair too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511
"What makes a gentleman tick?
Of course, there are watches and there are watches, and then there are watches
Christopher Pincher"
https://thecritic.co.uk/what-makes-a-gentleman-tick/
It’ll be a Crab Air A330, which not only has the range, but flies from an airbase with no journalists on it.
We haven't had any Arizona polling since the abortion ban law was introduced.
On immigration, there was a bi-partisan bill, killed at Trump's insistence because he couldn't have Biden getting a win. Everything from here on in down Mexico way is going to be laid at Trump's door. Biden has a massive spend advantage for adverts on this. The MAGA base will ignore that inconvenient truth; independents not so much.
The first time one of these chaps needs an operation they can't get in Rwanda, The Guardian will be on the case.
"No pastoral experience" is not quite right. She was a Non-Stipendiary Minister, (sometimes termed "Self-Supporting Minister") which is what it says - basically Vicar level with no stipend. A "stipend" is an allowance to allow you to carry out a Ministry, which is generally a bit less than national median salary for someone with at least 2 degrees - the CofE correctly models that it wants people called by service, not driven by money. Half-way models might be part time or "house for duty".
Her training for the NSM role would be the equivalent of one year full time, usually done as part of a group over 3 years at ~20 weekends per annum plus days plus conferences plus placement plus coursework - in her case St Albans Ministry Course. I have friends who have done it - it is very demanding, like a part time MBA and then more practical experience on top.
She was Ordained in 2006, so has about 15 years of experience as a senior leader in a parish, which I would say is a lot of experience. That will have been preaching and leading services not much less than weekly, pastoral work in the parish, being on the PCC and in the leadership team, and so on. I would need to check Crockfords for full details.
NSMs are usually people who work full or part time with a church / community focused ministry. There is another version of similar-level-qualified people who are known as MSEs, Ministers in Secular Employment - who have a particular focus towards the 'world of work' rather than the parish / community. They are like Industrial Chaplains with no stipend, in a particular professional context. Such combinations are immensely creative, but also have two orthogonal sets of demands, which can be very difficult to manage together.
I'd say that she was shortlisted for Bp of London due to her strategic level experience in the Post Office plus her ordination, bearing in mind that the Diocese of London has thousands of staff, about 500 churches and a community of around a million people. In the event it went to the former Chief Nursing Officer for England, who was by then a Suffragan Bishop. I'd say that a jump form NSM to Senior Bishop especially London is just too much.
My not very evidenced thought on what went wrong for Vennells is that she perhaps took on too much - very heavy senior roles at both home and work is too much for anyone, imo. So when the crisis emerged in the Post Office, there was not enough head space to deal with it effectively. And something had to give, which was curiosity and attention to detail.
We have also discovered that having sufficient ammunition to fight a 2 week war in Europe is completely insufficient and far greater reserves are needed.
Its not easy to see how either of these can be met from current budgets which already seem overstretched and over committed.
And finally, and perhaps most critically of all, we may find in November that the defence pact on which we have relied since the end of WW 2 is no longer something we can count on.