I do think after today the Tories will be lucky to get 150 seats.
At the start of the campaign I decided to put a seat totals estimate together for a little game I'm running at work.
I put the Conservatives on 227. I couldn't believe they'd run a campaign worse than Teresa May. I couldn't believe the polls wouldn't tighten, and 130 seat losses felt about right, on about 30% of the vote.
It looks farcical now. Does anyone on here truly believe they'll clear 200 seats, let alone 225?
I expect between 50 and 100, and have bets on below that...
On the one hand, you might think Reform voters are loud and proud of it, just like Farage’s personality would suggest.
But could we see some quieter types end up thinking ‘Sod it’ and ticking Reform box on the day?
I know the comparison isn’t perfect - but for both Brexit and 2016 Trump, you could point to a Leaver/Right wing vote segment that turned out unexpectedly for their outcome/candidate on the day.
And to be clear, I’m talking about a couple of percent vote share bump here, not an 80 seat surge or something crazy.
Gareth Jenkins evidence is very well worth listening to.
It would be interesting to get the views of any IT experts on here with time to hear it.
My friend lasted 5 minutes before walking away (she does Service Transition).
I lasted about the same as I listened to a solution architect say he didn't care about the details of suspense accounts but seemed to have been in a lot of meeting about them..
Basically he's full of crap but hey he was employed by Fujitsu so clearly wasn't any good because anyone good in the late 90s was a contractor and would be well retired by now.
In the Post Office's world, he's one of the best computer experts around. Otherwise they wouldn't have used him in court cases in the way they did.
Would you waste a good engineer on court cases? I'd have thought you'd send someone who was authoritative-sounding and not working on anything important.
Breaking news. Someone has thrown a 99 with extra chocolate sauce on Farage in Uxbridge. He needs some new Pr now as things have gone a bit quiet. Not really by the way.
Ice cream has gone downhill as the cost of ingredients rocketed. Are you sure it was aimed at Farage rath
Fun in France. The New Popular Front are having to go out of their way to say its leader Jean-Luc Melenchon will not be the Prime Minister if they win. While he leads the alliance he is not that popular with the electorate.
It's always fun in Paris. Time to put the computer down. Start at the Musee d'Orsay and take a Bateaux Mouche...the good life doesn't end at Stoke-on-Trent.
Musee d'Orsay is the best place in Paris. the rest of it is boring, like London. Though I did enjoy Notre Dame the exhibition on the rebuilding was really interesting you could sit on the stands and watch the roof being rebuilt bit by bit. I'm in Les Yvelines next week and can only enthuse myself to go to Paris as Im meeting an old friend for lunch.
London and Paris are boring?
Wow. Just wow.
I accept youre easily impressed and dont get out much.
Oh Alan why do you slip so readily into Ad Hominem? Ask yourself this, no need to reply.
It’s because I go out stacks that I don’t find London and Paris boring. There is sooooooo much to do. So many amazing galleries, fantastic eating, brilliant concerts. It’s a cornucopia of sensory pleasures.
You can, literally, spend every single night of the year out in London and never do the same thing twice. Amazing city.
That sort of depends what interests you. Chasing Candy Crush stores or overpriced restaurants isnt my bag. Ive worked in Paris long enough to treat it with the contempt it deserves and London just isnt me. I like Berlin, Prague Barcelona they are interesting. However I much prefer the countryside and landscape so much more to appreciate.
I can't see an American Candy Store without assuming it's a money laundering operation.
They seem to be everywhere now, well stocked, but there's never anyone in them.
Interestingly - !! - they aren’t just a london thing. Lots in Paris too. And Spain
So, where on earth has that come from?
There aren't that many - if any - Americans here and, "what I really want and need is lots of American Candy!!", said no-one - ever.
Yes it is very strange. Like a meme spreading
There must be some evolutionary reason - something that makes “candy stores” extremely easy to set up and maintain and staff - no need for security, nothing to steal, no training required? - so they can then be used for money laundering. Which is what they clearly are
I’m less convinced that Turkish barbers are all money laundering. Tho some must be
I'm late to this thread so apologies if this has been said but I think there may originally have been legitimate reasons to set up these shops, even if they are now mostly just fronts.
The business model for Turkish barber shops is not to be a barber yourself but to open a shop and then rent the chairs to actual barbers who can then ply their trade without the massive overhead of buying their own salon or needing to trouble HMRC. Trouble is it became a get rich quick scheme and there were soon too many shops for the number of hair stylists coming off the boat.
Likewise early American candy stores were (it is said) profitable. Open up in Oxford Street and cater not to Americans but to other tourists who are willing to pay over the odds to try the sweets they'd seen on the big screen for thousands of pounds less than actually holidaying in New York. But again copycats meant supply outstripped demand. Even supermarkets got in on the act, stocking any old American rubbish before axing most of their ranges.
A recent phenomenon I came across at Liverpool Street but are apparently everywhere across Europe is shops selling rubber ducks.
Gareth Jenkins evidence is very well worth listening to.
It would be interesting to get the views of any IT experts on here with time to hear it.
My friend lasted 5 minutes before walking away (she does Service Transition).
I lasted about the same as I listened to a solution architect say he didn't care about the details of suspense accounts but seemed to have been in a lot of meeting about them..
Basically he's full of crap but hey he was employed by Fujitsu so clearly wasn't any good because anyone good in the late 90s was a contractor and would be well retired by now.
In the Post Office's world, he's one of the best computer experts around. Otherwise they wouldn't have used him in court cases in the way they did.
Nope he was a person stupid enough to be willing to do so - I would have ran a million miles from attending court were such a request made and equally you wouldn't put me on a stand because I'm going to be honest that no system is perfect.
Remember this isn't even a system that had double book entry - because it wasn't deemed necessary...
Also I recently worked on a similar counter based banking system - it audits every click, every search, literally everything a user does - and even then it would form only part of the evidence taken to court. Yet Horizon did a 1/1000th of the audit things and was deemed enough by itself....
Labour are negotiating with JKRowling to be allowed to form the Government of the United Kingdom. Fuck knows how they will cope with Trump and Putin.
'After going to the Palace to be confirmed as the new UK prime minister, in a new addition to custom Sir Keir will be popping up to a big hoose in Edinburgh to be anointed by a goblet of fire.'
I hope "Reform" do badly in all seats including Clacton. Farage is the Oswald Mosely of the modern age. An absolute disgrace who provides succour to our enemies. How anyone who claims to be in the slightest bit patriotic could vote for him and his odious crew of weirdos, racists and misfits staggers me.
Well 10-15% of people will im afraid.
Im already seeing chatter on x from reform people talking about rigged polls and the like. From that its one step to talking about a rigged election.
Got to ask how do you rig an election in the UK?
Please note I want all the details no matter how insignificant.
Because the reality is that you can't do it in the UK...
The book lists various methods. I can think of three off the top of my head that can be done in the UK: ballot-box stuffing (delivering boxes with some votes in them, or substituting boxes), gerrymandering, voter intimidation. Bribery/Blackmail of the Returning officers should also yield results.
Some of these constituency odds really are quite astonishing.
Pity I quit gambling quite some time ago.
Are the bookies accepting decent stakes?
Last time I looked on Betfair Exchange there was hardly any liquidity wrt most constituencies, which was disappointing. I wanted to place a bet on the Greens in Isle of Wight East which I think they might unexpectedly win, but there wasn't anything on offer.
"For intolerant Farage supporters, grown-up debate has clearly become a farce I don’t expect to please every reader, but Reform supporters run scared of healthy, informed discussion
The top left quadrant is definitely where the cool kids are.
Suppose I could vote Green - shouldn’t make a difference to Yvette Cooper despite Reform - but not sure if I’m ready to make that leap. Am I really that sickeningly right-on and, dare I say it, woke? It seems I am…
It's a difficult thing for me to tell you but on that diagram the party you are marginally the closest to is the Liberal Democrats.
Labour has sunk so far, it no longer qualifies as progressive? Sunk with respect to the Y axis, obvs
Based on the policies they are actually standing on, that's probably true. I've always felt, as a slightly left-leaning liberal, that the Labour party is a conservative party and when electable is to the right of me except for economic policy.
I recently had a girlfriend who considered herself left wing Labour, and was strongly pro-Corbyn. Despite this, on most issues apart from economics (which were loony left), her views were generally much more right wing than mine although I suppose I mean authoritarian at least as often liberal. On the progressive left people often tend to conflate progressive and left-wing with being liberal when they don't have to be at all, as the history of communism shows.
This is a remarkable claim from Jenkins. Quite possibly testable at some point, though.
..He says he never knew about the so-called Clarke advice until 2020, seven years after barrister Simon Clarke warned the Post Office that Jenkin’s role as an expert witness had been “fatally undermined” because he didn’t reveal the existence of bugs...
I doubt that a piece of useful, non-trivial software that is completely devoid of bugs has ever been written. Bugs are just part of software. Nobody needs to "reveal" the existence of them.
Legally you probably do, there are a great many things that must be evidenced or stipulated to formally otherwise my understanding is juries and courts may not consider them.
That might be frustrating at times but seems for the best by being thorough.
Yes, I'm certainly not trying to defend the Post Office or Fujitsu. Their behaviour has clearly been appalling. I'm just surprised that something so self-evident as "computers are not 100% reliable" needs to be disclosed, or that the contrary is to be assumed.
Remember it was an assumption put into law to stop those lawyers forever challenging speed camera fines
I am not convinced this problem has a rational or just solution. Everything in the modern world depends on assumptions about the reliability of systems.
Keep the example simple: If the prosecution had to prove in every case that the words spoken in a telephone call were the same as the words heard at the other end of this complex electronic operation, the entire system would collapse.
And the example I have given is, compared with computer technology etc, dead simple.
Yes there is a problem. No, I have not seen the outline of a workable and just solution which can be put into statutory language.
Edit: one way might be to learn from the Scots and require corroboration in particular cases.
That 'simple' example is, of course, likely to be a great deal more complicated very soon.
I do think after today the Tories will be lucky to get 150 seats.
At the start of the campaign I decided to put a seat totals estimate together for a little game I'm running at work.
I put the Conservatives on 227. I couldn't believe they'd run a campaign worse than Teresa May. I couldn't believe the polls wouldn't tighten, and 130 seat losses felt about right, on about 30% of the vote.
It looks farcical now. Does anyone on here truly believe they'll clear 200 seats, let alone 225?
I think the Reform bubble is likely to deflate a bit, and something close to 30% is in reach. How many seats that buys them depends on a million factors around the Labour/LibDem split, but I don’t think 200 seats is impossible. It’s just at the very high end and would need a fair bit of luck about how the other votes split.
Over all through, in a week’s time I can just about see a 38/28 result on a low turn out if I squint. That would mean 364 Labour seats and 200 Tory on electoral calculus, and you can get some good odds around that scenario.
Reminder. Everyone confidently predicted the polls would begin to narrow a year out from the election. With just over a week to go till polling day we still don't have a credible data point that shows the Tories have hit the floor of their support.
Shit. Hodges has spoken. Everyone quick, buy Tory seats!
On the one hand, you might think Reform voters are loud and proud of it, just like Farage’s personality would suggest.
But could we see some quieter types end up thinking ‘Sod it’ and ticking Reform box on the day?
I know the comparison isn’t perfect - but for both Brexit and 2016 Trump, you could point to a Leaver/Right wing vote segment that turned out unexpectedly for their outcome/candidate on the day.
And to be clear, I’m talking about a couple of percent vote share bump here, not an 80 seat surge or something crazy.
You’d be more likely to see the shy Reform voter in telephone polling if that’s not computer assisted . There shouldn’t be any effect on online polls .
Hey, Labour are the ones begging for the meeting. If they want that then I see no issue with her making conditions. They can easily say no and she is no worse off.
My point is why is a noisy, unelected 'activist' who keeps themselves away from any public challenge making conditions. After the hilarious collapse of her Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with the CPGB I'd like to think that the future government of the UK would tell her to fck off, but cowardice is the default move for Labour.
It is Labour who asked for the meeting not Rowling. Clearly they see some electoral advantage. In which case she is perfectly entitled to make conditions if she feels they are not taking the issue seriously. Just as they are entitled to say no.
IIRC JKR is said (some time ago) to be a particular friend of Mr G. Brown and his wife, and is an established donor to Labour. Relevance of this is unclear to me.
I hope "Reform" do badly in all seats including Clacton. Farage is the Oswald Mosely of the modern age. An absolute disgrace who provides succour to our enemies. How anyone who claims to be in the slightest bit patriotic could vote for him and his odious crew of weirdos, racists and misfits staggers me.
Well 10-15% of people will im afraid.
Im already seeing chatter on x from reform people talking about rigged polls and the like. From that its one step to talking about a rigged election.
Got to ask how do you rig an election in the UK?
Please note I want all the details no matter how insignificant.
Because the reality is that you can't do it in the UK...
The book lists various methods. I can think of three off the top of my head that can be done in the UK: ballot-box stuffing (delivering boxes with some votes in them, or substituting boxes), gerrymandering, voter intimidation. Bribery/Blackmail of the Returning officers should also yield results.
Well @biggles and @IanB2 have covered how difficult ballot-box stuffing would be. Gerrymandering again is difficult because we have an independent body selecting the constituencies and voter intimidation is a criminal offence that the police deal with quickly and robustly - Stockton had 3 police cars round in 5 minutes to shift some bored teenagers away during the local elections.
So I think all 3 routes you outline simply don't exist in the UK....
Labour are negotiating with JKRowling to be allowed to form the Government of the United Kingdom. Fuck knows how they will cope with Trump and Putin.
'After going to the Palace to be confirmed as the new UK prime minister, in a new addition to custom Sir Keir will be popping up to a big hoose in Edinburgh to be anointed by a goblet of fire.'
Looking forward to watching the cabinet positions drawn out of the sorting hat.
The Tories should have supported AV in the referendum because at this election it would probably help them win a few extra seats, in contrast to 1997 when it would have reduced the number.
This is a remarkable claim from Jenkins. Quite possibly testable at some point, though.
..He says he never knew about the so-called Clarke advice until 2020, seven years after barrister Simon Clarke warned the Post Office that Jenkin’s role as an expert witness had been “fatally undermined” because he didn’t reveal the existence of bugs...
I doubt that a piece of useful, non-trivial software that is completely devoid of bugs has ever been written. Bugs are just part of software. Nobody needs to "reveal" the existence of them.
Legally you probably do, there are a great many things that must be evidenced or stipulated to formally otherwise my understanding is juries and courts may not consider them.
That might be frustrating at times but seems for the best by being thorough.
Yes, I'm certainly not trying to defend the Post Office or Fujitsu. Their behaviour has clearly been appalling. I'm just surprised that something so self-evident as "computers are not 100% reliable" needs to be disclosed, or that the contrary is to be assumed.
Remember it was an assumption put into law to stop those lawyers forever challenging speed camera fines
Surely it's possible for the law to reflect the likelihood of mistakes and the penalties involved. There's a big difference between 3 points or a fine resulting from a system that is 99.999% reliable and a fraud conviction and imprisonment resulting from a system that is 75% reliable.
Proving that the camera was reliable and that the individual camera used had been properly and recently calibrated was all too much trouble, and the lawyers were relying on throwing up so many technical queries and issues that the prosecution would give up. Hence the responsibility was shifted from proving reliability to having to prove unreliability
You don't have to 'prove' unreliability - rather produce evidence that unreliability is a realistic possibility.
Of course in a situation where the prosecution doesn't disclose evidence which might be exculpatory, and the defence has no access to the system in question, that isn't possible.
One solution might be to introduce a much stronger disclosure rule in computer cases, with strong penalties for failing to disclose.
At the moment there's a disclosure rule, but it seems to me that there's an assumption of prosecutorial good conduct, and not much in the way of real world remedies.
I hope "Reform" do badly in all seats including Clacton. Farage is the Oswald Mosely of the modern age. An absolute disgrace who provides succour to our enemies. How anyone who claims to be in the slightest bit patriotic could vote for him and his odious crew of weirdos, racists and misfits staggers me.
Well 10-15% of people will im afraid.
Im already seeing chatter on x from reform people talking about rigged polls and the like. From that its one step to talking about a rigged election.
Got to ask how do you rig an election in the UK?
Please note I want all the details no matter how insignificant.
Because the reality is that you can't do it in the UK...
The book lists various methods. I can think of three off the top of my head that can be done in the UK: ballot-box stuffing (delivering boxes with some votes in them, or substituting boxes), gerrymandering, voter intimidation. Bribery/Blackmail of the Returning officers should also yield results.
Some of these constituency odds really are quite astonishing.
Pity I quit gambling quite some time ago.
Are the bookies accepting decent stakes?
Last time I looked on Betfair Exchange there was hardly any liquidity wrt most constituencies, which was disappointing. I wanted to place a bet on the Greens in Isle of Wight East which I think they might unexpectedly win, but there wasn't anything on offer.
You said that last night. Why do you think that?
Because clearly the vote in those two seats will be split very widely between 4 or 5 candidates, and the Green candidate is well known and has done fairly well before. Voters are looking for a way to beat the Tories and may conclude it's the Greens in that seat. Just a hunch I have.
The Tories should have supported AV in the referendum because at this election it would probably help them win a few extra seats, in contrast to 1997 when it would have reduced the number.
Supporting a voting scheme just because it gives your side an advantage? No thanks.
"For intolerant Farage supporters, grown-up debate has clearly become a farce I don’t expect to please every reader, but Reform supporters run scared of healthy, informed discussion
This is a really weird article, as if it is from another period of time. It lays in to a group of people based on imprecise and vague personal anecdotes. How does this improve the quality of debate?
At least that one isn’t fraud, but rather NHS procurement incompetence.
Hold on. It says in that story that it was all to the correct standard, so presumably it just goes out of date or costs too much to store. Who are we to say that the moment this was ordered it wasn’t a rational thing to buy, looking at some reasonable worst case scenarios?
The top left quadrant is definitely where the cool kids are.
Suppose I could vote Green - shouldn’t make a difference to Yvette Cooper despite Reform - but not sure if I’m ready to make that leap. Am I really that sickeningly right-on and, dare I say it, woke? It seems I am…
It's a difficult thing for me to tell you but on that diagram the party you are marginally the closest to is the Liberal Democrats.
Labour has sunk so far, it no longer qualifies as progressive? Sunk with respect to the Y axis, obvs
Well I'm hoping they'll be progressive in office and it's a reasonable hope, I think. Phase 1 of the Starmer project (get elected) is almost over. Phase 2 (do stuff) lies ahead and there'll be a decent window until Phase 3 (get re-elected) begins.
Labour are negotiating with JKRowling to be allowed to form the Government of the United Kingdom. Fuck knows how they will cope with Trump and Putin.
'After going to the Palace to be confirmed as the new UK prime minister, in a new addition to custom Sir Keir will be popping up to a big hoose in Edinburgh to be anointed by a goblet of fire.'
Well yes, very droll. But it appears to be Labour who want to meet with her. She only has to do so under her own conditions.
The article makes it clear these are products we did receive but never used, and now it's out of date.
Realistically there's no alternative when demand surges then collapses. We were using 10 years worth of PPE in each week, then we weren't again, so when the music stops there's either going to be a case of running out of PPE and putting people's lives in greater jeopardy, or getting too much then never using it.
How does this stuff go out of date so quickly?
Is is just a paperwork thing or is there actual degradation of the material?
I'd have taken a few gowns for painting the ceiling etc etc.
I seem to recall that the NHS had no real notion of stock rotation of PPE - so a hospital would be regularly using fresh stock and there would be a huge stockpile somewhere else (for the infamous flu plan) that was never brought out, used and replaced. It seems we have done the same here.
Elementary failures at a basic level.
It all comes back to the doctrine of single use, throw away stuff. Which has to be bio-degradable.
The French tried using gowns that were past their date - they literally fell apart.
Apparently, reusable PPE is not possible. Despite it being used in other contexts.
On the one hand, you might think Reform voters are loud and proud of it, just like Farage’s personality would suggest.
But could we see some quieter types end up thinking ‘Sod it’ and ticking Reform box on the day?
I know the comparison isn’t perfect - but for both Brexit and 2016 Trump, you could point to a Leaver/Right wing vote segment that turned out unexpectedly for their outcome/candidate on the day.
And to be clear, I’m talking about a couple of percent vote share bump here, not an 80 seat surge or something crazy.
I'd wonder about Reform's brand recognition for the uninformed voter. Ukip and the Brexit Party were longer established and did what they said on the tin. Reform sounds like some wishy-washy centrists that Chuka Umunna might have set up a few years back, and by all accounts there is no ground operation. If I were them, I'd do a last-minutes social media drop that just had the Reform banner and a photo of Nigel Farage.
ETA protestors are doing Farage's work for him, and cheaper than paid stooges.
At least that one isn’t fraud, but rather NHS procurement incompetence.
Hold on. It says in that story that it was all to the correct standard, so presumably it just goes out of date or costs too much to store. Who are we to say that the moment this was ordered it wasn’t a rational thing to buy, looking at some reasonable worst case scenarios?
Yeah, it’s hard to get worked up about this particular case given how everyone was demanding more and more PPE. Remember Labour’s dossier of PPE “experts”?
Could this be the real reason Sunak daren't delay the GE further?
We have to start towing them back to France, if no one is prepared to do Rwanda
Sorry, cannot accept that. I am not happy clappy, all people are legal, welcome them all in, open borders, like many in Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens are but you cannot risk a single persons life by doing that.
You also have to have a proper process to allow people to apply to come here rather than risk their lives on boats and then just turn up and disappear into the black economy.
Stop being such a flake
Their lives are already being risked. They drown quite regularly. And hundreds drown in the Med
If we tow them back they will stop coming so in the end you will save many more lives than might be lost. You just have to be quite ruthless at first
Also, this is inevitable. In the end if you don’t do this voters will elect fascists that will do much much worse than this. See the recent European elex
Don't you have a contradiction there. You say hundreds drown already. You also say they will stop coming if we tow them back so the extra risk of drowning will in the end save lives as it will stop them coming.
Why will it stop them coming if they risk drowning already? They will still come in a hope of not being caught.
Re you last sentence that is a genuine worry I agree.
Because they won’t risk drowning if they know there is a 100% chance they will simply be towed back to France
But it isn't a 100% chance is it? Far from it. We can't stop all boats. So boats will still get through. And for those that don't, they will be towed back and then try again. And seeing as they aren't afraid of drowning in the first place that won't stop them either.
This is the same flawed policy of sending them to Rwanda. It isn't going to stop anyone. Did you hear the interview with the father of the girl drowned on that overcrowded boat on the TV a few weeks ago. None of this is going to stop them.
Gareth Jenkins evidence is very well worth listening to.
It would be interesting to get the views of any IT experts on here with time to hear it.
My friend lasted 5 minutes before walking away (she does Service Transition).
I lasted about the same as I listened to a solution architect say he didn't care about the details of suspense accounts but seemed to have been in a lot of meeting about them..
Basically he's full of crap but hey he was employed by Fujitsu so clearly wasn't any good because anyone good in the late 90s was a contractor and would be well retired by now.
Can we expect the truth from him here given he's vulnerable to perjury charges?
On the one hand, you might think Reform voters are loud and proud of it, just like Farage’s personality would suggest.
But could we see some quieter types end up thinking ‘Sod it’ and ticking Reform box on the day?
I know the comparison isn’t perfect - but for both Brexit and 2016 Trump, you could point to a Leaver/Right wing vote segment that turned out unexpectedly for their outcome/candidate on the day.
And to be clear, I’m talking about a couple of percent vote share bump here, not an 80 seat surge or something crazy.
I'd wonder about Reform's brand recognition for the uninformed voter. Ukip and the Brexit Party were longer established and did what they said on the tin. Reform sounds like some wishy-washy centrists that Chuka Umunna might have set up a few years back, and by all accounts there is no ground operation. If I were them, I'd do a last-minutes social media drop that just had the Reform banner and a photo of Nigel Farage.
It would be hilarious if all his talk of leading the Tories meant that 50% of his voters thought he already was, and voted for them.
Could this be the real reason Sunak daren't delay the GE further?
We have to start towing them back to France, if no one is prepared to do Rwanda
Sorry, cannot accept that. I am not happy clappy, all people are legal, welcome them all in, open borders, like many in Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens are but you cannot risk a single persons life by doing that.
You also have to have a proper process to allow people to apply to come here rather than risk their lives on boats and then just turn up and disappear into the black economy.
Stop being such a flake
Their lives are already being risked. They drown quite regularly. And hundreds drown in the Med
If we tow them back they will stop coming so in the end you will save many more lives than might be lost. You just have to be quite ruthless at first
Also, this is inevitable. In the end if you don’t do this voters will elect fascists that will do much much worse than this. See the recent European elex
Don't you have a contradiction there. You say hundreds drown already. You also say they will stop coming if we tow them back so the extra risk of drowning will in the end save lives as it will stop them coming.
Why will it stop them coming if they risk drowning already? They will still come in a hope of not being caught.
Re you last sentence that is a genuine worry I agree.
Because they won’t risk drowning if they know there is a 100% chance they will simply be towed back to France
But it isn't a 100% chance is it? Far from it. We can't stop all boats. So boats will still get through. And for those that don't, they will be towed back and then try again. And seeing as they aren't afraid of drowning in the first place that won't stop them either.
This is the same flawed policy of sending them to Rwanda. It isn't going to stop anyone. Did you hear the interview with the father of the girl drowned on that overcrowded boat on the TV a few weeks ago. None of this is going to stop them.
Gareth Jenkins evidence is very well worth listening to.
It would be interesting to get the views of any IT experts on here with time to hear it.
My friend lasted 5 minutes before walking away (she does Service Transition).
I lasted about the same as I listened to a solution architect say he didn't care about the details of suspense accounts but seemed to have been in a lot of meeting about them..
Basically he's full of crap but hey he was employed by Fujitsu so clearly wasn't any good because anyone good in the late 90s was a contractor and would be well retired by now.
Can we expect the truth from him here given he's vulnerable to perjury charges?
Note the number of times you hear I cannot recall, it was over 20 years ago...
This is a remarkable claim from Jenkins. Quite possibly testable at some point, though.
..He says he never knew about the so-called Clarke advice until 2020, seven years after barrister Simon Clarke warned the Post Office that Jenkin’s role as an expert witness had been “fatally undermined” because he didn’t reveal the existence of bugs...
I doubt that a piece of useful, non-trivial software that is completely devoid of bugs has ever been written. Bugs are just part of software. Nobody needs to "reveal" the existence of them.
The law (wrongly) says that computers are reliable unless shown otherwise.
So unless someone talked about bugs the court could only assume that there weren't any.
It depends what you mean by reliable, I suppose. Most cars can be considered to be reliable these days, but that doesn't mean they never break down. Similarly, a computer system may be regarded as reliable, but that doesn't mean it's always right.
The problem is they brought in a law in about 1999 saying that courts had to assume computer evidence was correct, because they didn't like the way in which defendants were questioning computer evidence before that.
Surprised that has survived without challenge in domestic or EHRC for so long.
Basically reverses the burden of proof.
The 1999 law related to things such as speed cameras where it's reasonable to assume they are valid and calibrated - the world has moved on since then but the nuances of the law haven't....
Isnt the right answer along the lines of:
If punishment is small fines - trust the system unless proven otherwise If punishment is lengthy jail terms - leave it open for the defence to explore reasonable doubt
Gareth Jenkins evidence is very well worth listening to.
It would be interesting to get the views of any IT experts on here with time to hear it.
My friend lasted 5 minutes before walking away (she does Service Transition).
I lasted about the same as I listened to a solution architect say he didn't care about the details of suspense accounts but seemed to have been in a lot of meeting about them..
Basically he's full of crap but hey he was employed by Fujitsu so clearly wasn't any good because anyone good in the late 90s was a contractor and would be well retired by now.
Can we expect the truth from him here given he's vulnerable to perjury charges?
Note the number of times you hear I cannot recall, it was over 20 years ago...
I do always feel a bit of sympathy for people called to these things, because if I had to testify about something I had done or signed off in my job as little as six months ago, you’d get a lot of “I can’t remember” if it felt routine at the time.
This is a remarkable claim from Jenkins. Quite possibly testable at some point, though.
..He says he never knew about the so-called Clarke advice until 2020, seven years after barrister Simon Clarke warned the Post Office that Jenkin’s role as an expert witness had been “fatally undermined” because he didn’t reveal the existence of bugs...
I doubt that a piece of useful, non-trivial software that is completely devoid of bugs has ever been written. Bugs are just part of software. Nobody needs to "reveal" the existence of them.
Legally you probably do, there are a great many things that must be evidenced or stipulated to formally otherwise my understanding is juries and courts may not consider them.
That might be frustrating at times but seems for the best by being thorough.
Yes, I'm certainly not trying to defend the Post Office or Fujitsu. Their behaviour has clearly been appalling. I'm just surprised that something so self-evident as "computers are not 100% reliable" needs to be disclosed, or that the contrary is to be assumed.
Remember it was an assumption put into law to stop those lawyers forever challenging speed camera fines
I am not convinced this problem has a rational or just solution. Everything in the modern world depends on assumptions about the reliability of systems.
Keep the example simple: If the prosecution had to prove in every case that the words spoken in a telephone call were the same as the words heard at the other end of this complex electronic operation, the entire system would collapse.
And the example I have given is, compared with computer technology etc, dead simple.
Yes there is a problem. No, I have not seen the outline of a workable and just solution which can be put into statutory language.
Edit: one way might be to learn from the Scots and require corroboration in particular cases.
I always think Nick Freeman made his money by being utterly shameless in the way he operated. Police did actually investigate him once.
At least that one isn’t fraud, but rather NHS procurement incompetence.
Hold on. It says in that story that it was all to the correct standard, so presumably it just goes out of date or costs too much to store. Who are we to say that the moment this was ordered it wasn’t a rational thing to buy, looking at some reasonable worst case scenarios?
Yeah, it’s hard to get worked up about this particular case given how everyone was demanding more and more PPE. Remember Labour’s dossier of PPE “experts”?
Remember the Health Secretary who buried the Cygnus recommendations to stockpile PPE in case of a pandemic?
Remember the Conservative minister resigning in disgust because they were nodding through obvious frauds?
This is a remarkable claim from Jenkins. Quite possibly testable at some point, though.
..He says he never knew about the so-called Clarke advice until 2020, seven years after barrister Simon Clarke warned the Post Office that Jenkin’s role as an expert witness had been “fatally undermined” because he didn’t reveal the existence of bugs...
I doubt that a piece of useful, non-trivial software that is completely devoid of bugs has ever been written. Bugs are just part of software. Nobody needs to "reveal" the existence of them.
Legally you probably do, there are a great many things that must be evidenced or stipulated to formally otherwise my understanding is juries and courts may not consider them.
That might be frustrating at times but seems for the best by being thorough.
Yes, I'm certainly not trying to defend the Post Office or Fujitsu. Their behaviour has clearly been appalling. I'm just surprised that something so self-evident as "computers are not 100% reliable" needs to be disclosed, or that the contrary is to be assumed.
You are right of course but this all stems from the fact that some idiot passed a law saying that, in effect, they are 100% reliable.
Isn't it more that the onus is on those wishing to cite "computer was wrong" as part of their case to prove that, rather than on those wishing to cite "computer was right" to prove that?
On the one hand, you might think Reform voters are loud and proud of it, just like Farage’s personality would suggest.
But could we see some quieter types end up thinking ‘Sod it’ and ticking Reform box on the day?
I know the comparison isn’t perfect - but for both Brexit and 2016 Trump, you could point to a Leaver/Right wing vote segment that turned out unexpectedly for their outcome/candidate on the day.
And to be clear, I’m talking about a couple of percent vote share bump here, not an 80 seat surge or something crazy.
Based on the treatment of anyone putting their head above the parapet here that they might vote Reform. I suspect there will be a *lot* of shy reformers.
Whether they actually care too much about Reforms policies in detail or just want to kick the big three parties in the proverbials is more debatable.
This is a remarkable claim from Jenkins. Quite possibly testable at some point, though.
..He says he never knew about the so-called Clarke advice until 2020, seven years after barrister Simon Clarke warned the Post Office that Jenkin’s role as an expert witness had been “fatally undermined” because he didn’t reveal the existence of bugs...
I doubt that a piece of useful, non-trivial software that is completely devoid of bugs has ever been written. Bugs are just part of software. Nobody needs to "reveal" the existence of them.
Legally you probably do, there are a great many things that must be evidenced or stipulated to formally otherwise my understanding is juries and courts may not consider them.
That might be frustrating at times but seems for the best by being thorough.
Yes, I'm certainly not trying to defend the Post Office or Fujitsu. Their behaviour has clearly been appalling. I'm just surprised that something so self-evident as "computers are not 100% reliable" needs to be disclosed, or that the contrary is to be assumed.
You are right of course but this all stems from the fact that some idiot passed a law saying that, in effect, they are 100% reliable.
Isn't it more that the onus is on those wishing to cite "computer was wrong" as part of their case to prove that, rather than on those wishing to cite "computer was right" to prove that?
Yep that's the issue - I know computers can go wrong and provide multiple examples and ways in which they could do so.
My wife / parents haven't got a clue on that type of thing..
This is a remarkable claim from Jenkins. Quite possibly testable at some point, though.
..He says he never knew about the so-called Clarke advice until 2020, seven years after barrister Simon Clarke warned the Post Office that Jenkin’s role as an expert witness had been “fatally undermined” because he didn’t reveal the existence of bugs...
I doubt that a piece of useful, non-trivial software that is completely devoid of bugs has ever been written. Bugs are just part of software. Nobody needs to "reveal" the existence of them.
Legally you probably do, there are a great many things that must be evidenced or stipulated to formally otherwise my understanding is juries and courts may not consider them.
That might be frustrating at times but seems for the best by being thorough.
Yes, I'm certainly not trying to defend the Post Office or Fujitsu. Their behaviour has clearly been appalling. I'm just surprised that something so self-evident as "computers are not 100% reliable" needs to be disclosed, or that the contrary is to be assumed.
Remember it was an assumption put into law to stop those lawyers forever challenging speed camera fines
Surely it's possible for the law to reflect the likelihood of mistakes and the penalties involved. There's a big difference between 3 points or a fine resulting from a system that is 99.999% reliable and a fraud conviction and imprisonment resulting from a system that is 75% reliable.
Proving that the camera was reliable and that the individual camera used had been properly and recently calibrated was all too much trouble, and the lawyers were relying on throwing up so many technical queries and issues that the prosecution would give up. Hence the responsibility was shifted from proving reliability to having to prove unreliability
You don't have to 'prove' unreliability - rather produce evidence that unreliability is a realistic possibility.
Of course in a situation where the prosecution doesn't disclose evidence which might be exculpatory, and the defence has no access to the system in question, that isn't possible.
One solution might be to introduce a much stronger disclosure rule in computer cases, with strong penalties for failing to disclose.
At the moment there's a disclosure rule, but it seems to me that there's an assumption of prosecutorial good conduct, and not much in the way of real world remedies.
Actually, that might be the solution, without changing evidentiary law all over again and jamming up the system.
Make failure to disclose exculpatory evidence a strict liability offence (as with eg breaches of health and safety regs), punishable by fines, and criminal prosecutions in the most egregious cases.
It would make prosecutors a great deal more scrupulous about discharging their legal responsibilities.
Could this be the real reason Sunak daren't delay the GE further?
We have to start towing them back to France, if no one is prepared to do Rwanda
Tho I predict Labour - which could easily get crushed by this issue in months - will adopt a form of Rwanda. In fact I expect a Europe wide consensus on this. It will feel less “fash” if everyone does it
Under what law are we ‘towing people to France’? I am so bored with hearing this stuff. If only there was a Europe wide body where political issues could be discussed and where we could develop a ‘Europe wide consensus’. Perhaps someone should develop something the UK could join.
The obvious way to deal with irregular immigration is to process the would-be immigrants' claims efficiently, and then quickly deport those who are deemed not eligible to stay. The returns deal on Albanian migrants successfully reduced Channel crossings from 45,774 in 2022 to 29,437 in 2023. Why can this not be replicated with other nations?
Take them by the breek erse when they get off the taxi and put them back on another boat to wherever within 24 hours. That is long enough to grill them in detention and ascertain if they are chancers or not. Given about 98% are young men it should be a no brainer.
Gareth Jenkins evidence is very well worth listening to.
It would be interesting to get the views of any IT experts on here with time to hear it.
My friend lasted 5 minutes before walking away (she does Service Transition).
I lasted about the same as I listened to a solution architect say he didn't care about the details of suspense accounts but seemed to have been in a lot of meeting about them..
Basically he's full of crap but hey he was employed by Fujitsu so clearly wasn't any good because anyone good in the late 90s was a contractor and would be well retired by now.
Can we expect the truth from him here given he's vulnerable to perjury charges?
Could this be the real reason Sunak daren't delay the GE further?
We have to start towing them back to France, if no one is prepared to do Rwanda
Sorry, cannot accept that. I am not happy clappy, all people are legal, welcome them all in, open borders, like many in Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens are but you cannot risk a single persons life by doing that.
You also have to have a proper process to allow people to apply to come here rather than risk their lives on boats and then just turn up and disappear into the black economy.
Stop being such a flake
Their lives are already being risked. They drown quite regularly. And hundreds drown in the Med
If we tow them back they will stop coming so in the end you will save many more lives than might be lost. You just have to be quite ruthless at first
Also, this is inevitable. In the end if you don’t do this voters will elect fascists that will do much much worse than this. See the recent European elex
Don't you have a contradiction there. You say hundreds drown already. You also say they will stop coming if we tow them back so the extra risk of drowning will in the end save lives as it will stop them coming.
Why will it stop them coming if they risk drowning already? They will still come in a hope of not being caught.
Re you last sentence that is a genuine worry I agree.
Because they won’t risk drowning if they know there is a 100% chance they will simply be towed back to France
But it isn't a 100% chance is it? Far from it. We can't stop all boats. So boats will still get through. And for those that don't, they will be towed back and then try again. And seeing as they aren't afraid of drowning in the first place that won't stop them either.
This is the same flawed policy of sending them to Rwanda. It isn't going to stop anyone. Did you hear the interview with the father of the girl drowned on that overcrowded boat on the TV a few weeks ago. None of this is going to stop them.
France truly must be a terrible place to live.
Can I suggest listening to that interview. I am also amazed people risk their lives to leave a country that is perfectly safe and very pleasant, but of course it isn't as simple as that, as it never is. From memory he left Syria 10 years ago and went to Sweden, married, had children who went to school there, but was then being deported so ran again. I believe he was then threatened with deportation from Belgium and France. So this is why they risk their lives to leave other safe countries.
I don't know what the answer is, but this man lost his daughter as a consequence. People don't take these risks for trivial reasons.
On the one hand, you might think Reform voters are loud and proud of it, just like Farage’s personality would suggest.
But could we see some quieter types end up thinking ‘Sod it’ and ticking Reform box on the day?
I know the comparison isn’t perfect - but for both Brexit and 2016 Trump, you could point to a Leaver/Right wing vote segment that turned out unexpectedly for their outcome/candidate on the day.
And to be clear, I’m talking about a couple of percent vote share bump here, not an 80 seat surge or something crazy.
A comment I posted on a June 19th thread:
"From a sheer psychological perspective I wonder if there's a small but significant number (of the general population, rather than PBers) who are deluding themselves along the lines of 'I will continue to vote Conservative, I can't vote for that nasty man Farage' and that is also how they are responding to pollsters. Because they themselves genuinely believe it. And they will kid themselves that they are Con voters right up until July 4th.
But on polling day, they may actually get into the voting booth and go 'go on then, the Tories have lost anyway and Farage is the only one talking sense on immigration' and give Reform a cheeky X. Feeling a bit naughty for having done so. Like popping into Asda for your essentials and hoping you don't get caught by one of your Waitrose-shopping friends.
No scientific basis for this - just a weird gut feeling I have."
Most of my friends are status-seeking middle class types, for whom the idea of voting reform, or at least openly admitting voting reform, is seen as a bit of an infra dig, council estate type thing to do. But I suspect in secret at least some of them will break for reform without wanting to admit it.
However I think Farage's Putinist gaffe may have reduced those numbers somewhat. Hopefully.
I hope "Reform" do badly in all seats including Clacton. Farage is the Oswald Mosely of the modern age. An absolute disgrace who provides succour to our enemies. How anyone who claims to be in the slightest bit patriotic could vote for him and his odious crew of weirdos, racists and misfits staggers me.
Well 10-15% of people will im afraid.
Im already seeing chatter on x from reform people talking about rigged polls and the like. From that its one step to talking about a rigged election.
Got to ask how do you rig an election in the UK?
Please note I want all the details no matter how insignificant.
Because the reality is that you can't do it in the UK...
The book lists various methods. I can think of three off the top of my head that can be done in the UK: ballot-box stuffing (delivering boxes with some votes in them, or substituting boxes), gerrymandering, voter intimidation. Bribery/Blackmail of the Returning officers should also yield results.
Well @biggles and @IanB2 have covered how difficult ballot-box stuffing would be. Gerrymandering again is difficult because we have an independent body selecting the constituencies and voter intimidation is a criminal offence that the police deal with quickly and robustly - Stockton had 3 police cars round in 5 minutes to shift some bored teenagers away during the local elections.
So I think all 3 routes you outline simply don't exist in the UK....
Gerrymandering of a sort was done by the Cameron government as explained in the past. Ironically it likely cost them the Brexit referendum and ended Cameron's and Osborne's political careers. (OK, suspended, not ended, as it turned out.)
Widespread violation of the no photography rule opens the way to bribery and intimidation of voters who can now be asked for a selfie to prove how they voted.
And it has been admitted the photo ID rule was designed to suppress Labour votes. (Next time, look out for spurious justifications for lowering the voting age!)
Targeted below the radar social media adverts and posts mean anything can be said about any politician and if they do not know about it (because it is targeted, remember) they can't counter it.
ETA: and all those lovely, lovely expat voters. Let's hope they've not gone off the party that delivered Brexit!
The top left quadrant is definitely where the cool kids are.
Suppose I could vote Green - shouldn’t make a difference to Yvette Cooper despite Reform - but not sure if I’m ready to make that leap. Am I really that sickeningly right-on and, dare I say it, woke? It seems I am…
It's a difficult thing for me to tell you but on that diagram the party you are marginally the closest to is the Liberal Democrats.
Yeah somebody else said that, forget who but thanks to you both.
Maybe I'm a grizzled loner refusing to accede to the stifling mores of polite society, a free-thinking maverick unafraid to buck the trend, a radical hero to the downtrodden and dispossessed, but I think you have to weight for quadrant.
Sure, if you're a part of the unthinking herd you might, in a petty act of small-minded pedantry, get out a ruler and do something so bourgeois as, y'know, measure something accurately. But for us freedom fighters of the top left quadrant, that kind of reactionary thinking just doesn't wash.
I like to think I'm up there with the great revolutionary icons of our time, a charismatic voice leading the lumpen masses out from under the stifling yoke of the sclerotic elites: Guevara, Galloway, Monkey.
You are Che, no question. It's how I've always thought of you.
As it happens when I did it I came in a similar place. Top Left. Did it a few times until I got there.
This is a remarkable claim from Jenkins. Quite possibly testable at some point, though.
..He says he never knew about the so-called Clarke advice until 2020, seven years after barrister Simon Clarke warned the Post Office that Jenkin’s role as an expert witness had been “fatally undermined” because he didn’t reveal the existence of bugs...
I doubt that a piece of useful, non-trivial software that is completely devoid of bugs has ever been written. Bugs are just part of software. Nobody needs to "reveal" the existence of them.
Legally you probably do, there are a great many things that must be evidenced or stipulated to formally otherwise my understanding is juries and courts may not consider them.
That might be frustrating at times but seems for the best by being thorough.
Yes, I'm certainly not trying to defend the Post Office or Fujitsu. Their behaviour has clearly been appalling. I'm just surprised that something so self-evident as "computers are not 100% reliable" needs to be disclosed, or that the contrary is to be assumed.
You are right of course but this all stems from the fact that some idiot passed a law saying that, in effect, they are 100% reliable.
Isn't it more that the onus is on those wishing to cite "computer was wrong" as part of their case to prove that, rather than on those wishing to cite "computer was right" to prove that?
The onus should always be on the prosecution to prove their case not the other way round. Currently that burden of proof is reversed. Hence (in part) the PO scandal.
On computer programs and bugs, a colleague of mine many years ago used to have a policy of leaving one small bug unfixed - highlighted to users and well-documented for coders, with information on how to avoid or fix the problem - on the theory that once you fixed the *last* bug, you'd *always* find another one.
Did he also carry an unfused bomb on airplane flights? The theory being that the chance of two bombs on the same plane was very unlikely….
At least that one isn’t fraud, but rather NHS procurement incompetence.
Hold on. It says in that story that it was all to the correct standard, so presumably it just goes out of date or costs too much to store. Who are we to say that the moment this was ordered it wasn’t a rational thing to buy, looking at some reasonable worst case scenarios?
Yeah, it’s hard to get worked up about this particular case given how everyone was demanding more and more PPE. Remember Labour’s dossier of PPE “experts”?
I disagree.
Those not in government were in a far less informed position to know what PPE was needed, how much had been secured, or ascertain how reliable prospective suppliers were.
What seems now evident is that the amounts contracted for were way in excess of anything that might eventually have been needed, and that government continued contacting with dodgy suppliers well after it had hit what it needed.
Obviously there will be overbuying in an emergency, but you can still take steps to mitigate fraud, excess profits and eventual surplus stock. It appears that there was zero effort at any of the above.
Gareth Jenkins evidence is very well worth listening to.
It would be interesting to get the views of any IT experts on here with time to hear it.
My friend lasted 5 minutes before walking away (she does Service Transition).
I lasted about the same as I listened to a solution architect say he didn't care about the details of suspense accounts but seemed to have been in a lot of meeting about them..
Basically he's full of crap but hey he was employed by Fujitsu so clearly wasn't any good because anyone good in the late 90s was a contractor and would be well retired by now.
In the Post Office's world, he's one of the best computer experts around. Otherwise they wouldn't have used him in court cases in the way they did.
Nope he was a person stupid enough to be willing to do so - I would have ran a million miles from attending court were such a request made and equally you wouldn't put me on a stand because I'm going to be honest that no system is perfect.
Remember this isn't even a system that had double book entry - because it wasn't deemed necessary...
Also I recently worked on a similar counter based banking system - it audits every click, every search, literally everything a user does - and even then it would form only part of the evidence taken to court. Yet Horizon did a 1/1000th of the audit things and was deemed enough by itself....
Am I right that was holed the Post Office below the water line was that Alan Bates did his own books to double entry standard?
Gareth Jenkins evidence is very well worth listening to.
It would be interesting to get the views of any IT experts on here with time to hear it.
I think his testimony is about avoiding admitting guilt, like you are wise to do at a road traffic accident.
I don't know who is 'guilty' of crimes, although its pretty clear that crimes have been committed (perjury seems likely from the evidence presented). However even if anyone from the PO does get convicted I think the tortuous skewering by Jason Beer KC is likely to be worse than the actual criminal trials. Its been brilliant. And so much material to work with.
The logical way forward is to declare the management function of the Post Office a criminal organisation. Membership punishable by life in prison.
We can then wait twenty years and then start pardoning anyone who was hard done by.
Could this be the real reason Sunak daren't delay the GE further?
We have to start towing them back to France, if no one is prepared to do Rwanda
Sorry, cannot accept that. I am not happy clappy, all people are legal, welcome them all in, open borders, like many in Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens are but you cannot risk a single persons life by doing that.
You also have to have a proper process to allow people to apply to come here rather than risk their lives on boats and then just turn up and disappear into the black economy.
Stop being such a flake
Their lives are already being risked. They drown quite regularly. And hundreds drown in the Med
If we tow them back they will stop coming so in the end you will save many more lives than might be lost. You just have to be quite ruthless at first
Also, this is inevitable. In the end if you don’t do this voters will elect fascists that will do much much worse than this. See the recent European elex
Don't you have a contradiction there. You say hundreds drown already. You also say they will stop coming if we tow them back so the extra risk of drowning will in the end save lives as it will stop them coming.
Why will it stop them coming if they risk drowning already? They will still come in a hope of not being caught.
Re you last sentence that is a genuine worry I agree.
Because they won’t risk drowning if they know there is a 100% chance they will simply be towed back to France
But it isn't a 100% chance is it? Far from it. We can't stop all boats. So boats will still get through. And for those that don't, they will be towed back and then try again. And seeing as they aren't afraid of drowning in the first place that won't stop them either.
This is the same flawed policy of sending them to Rwanda. It isn't going to stop anyone. Did you hear the interview with the father of the girl drowned on that overcrowded boat on the TV a few weeks ago. None of this is going to stop them.
It worked in Australia it will work in the UK
You don’t have to catch 100% it has to be a sufficiently high percentage to deter. It’s hard to say what that is as we’re too spineless to try. But eventually we will have to or the voters will do it for us by electing Nazis who will sink the boats
Personally I’d combine a tow back procedure with some kind of Rwandan plan. The double deterrent would stop the boats completely
The eu will also do something like this as Democratic governments realise that electorates are quite prepared to go hard right if this is not done
Your reminder of the latest polling in France ahead of Sunday’s election
Gareth Jenkins evidence is very well worth listening to.
It would be interesting to get the views of any IT experts on here with time to hear it.
My friend lasted 5 minutes before walking away (she does Service Transition).
I lasted about the same as I listened to a solution architect say he didn't care about the details of suspense accounts but seemed to have been in a lot of meeting about them..
Basically he's full of crap but hey he was employed by Fujitsu so clearly wasn't any good because anyone good in the late 90s was a contractor and would be well retired by now.
In the Post Office's world, he's one of the best computer experts around. Otherwise they wouldn't have used him in court cases in the way they did.
Nope he was a person stupid enough to be willing to do so - I would have ran a million miles from attending court were such a request made and equally you wouldn't put me on a stand because I'm going to be honest that no system is perfect.
Remember this isn't even a system that had double book entry - because it wasn't deemed necessary...
Also I recently worked on a similar counter based banking system - it audits every click, every search, literally everything a user does - and even then it would form only part of the evidence taken to court. Yet Horizon did a 1/1000th of the audit things and was deemed enough by itself....
Am I right that was holed the Post Office below the water line was that Alan Bates did his own books to double entry standard?
I believe so.
Very easy to create computer systems that don’t delete or change *anything* - deletion or change is implemented as adding another record saying “delete” or “change”. So you have a history of everything that has ever happened. And you can wind forward and backwards to see the chain of events.
Monevator pointing out the absurdity of the governments plan on normal minimum pension age increase. Nothing wrong with the policy but on the implementation side they forgot to (or couldn't be bothered as were reminded) include transitional arrangements. This is the kind of low level crap I really hope Labour try and get right, instead of worrying about the next days headlines on stuff they can't fix. Not exciting for anyone but makes a difference in aggregate.
"Up to 5 April 2028 most people can tap into their pension from age 55. Overnight, from 6 April 2028 the minimum pension age rises to 57. Critically, there’s no transitional arrangement in place. So if you’re not 57 on 6 April 2028, you will generally not be able to access your pension. Even if you were doing so because you were over-55 before that date! In the case of someone born on 5 April 1973, they will have precisely 24 hours to enjoy their pension before it closes for another two years."
Anyhow I trust Heathener clocks that Newton Abbot is clearly accepted as a LD prospect and that, per that map, Labour is directing activists away from there
No. Stopping trolling me with LibDem propaganda Ian. You are normally a lot better than this.
I posted a very thoughtful analysis earlier. You’re welcome to reply to it.
How is a story from the FT based on data from Labour HQ, LibDem propaganda?
The evidence is all pretty clear
It didn’t provide evidence and no it isn’t. But you haven’t responded to my detailed and objective post about the current state of the MRPs and tactical voting sites.
Seeing you start to spin for the LibDems, then dressing it up as ‘evidence’ is disappointing.
Alliance Party 78% Social Democratic & Labour Party 66% People Before Profit 64% Sinn Féin 63% Ulster Unionist Party 49% Democratic Unionist Party 29% Traditional Unionist Voice 27%
I tried it for NI because I thought it would be more interesting!
Yes. I don’t believe these theories that he is playing 12 dimensional chess and he wants to lose and he wants le pen to win so she can screw up governing and ruin her POTFR chances
I reckon he believed his own hype. He is jupiterian! He thought he could terrify the French into abandoning the far right and far left and return to the centre. It seems like the opposite is happening
This is a potential earthquake as big as ours. However the French do have that two vote system so macron may yet claw back something…
Hey, Labour are the ones begging for the meeting. If they want that then I see no issue with her making conditions. They can easily say no and she is no worse off.
My point is why is a noisy, unelected 'activist' who keeps themselves away from any public challenge making conditions. After the hilarious collapse of her Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with the CPGB I'd like to think that the future government of the UK would tell her to fck off, but cowardice is the default move for Labour.
It is Labour who asked for the meeting not Rowling. Clearly they see some electoral advantage. In which case she is perfectly entitled to make conditions if she feels they are not taking the issue seriously. Just as they are entitled to say no.
They are trying to get popularity by being seen to be with her but given they cannot tell a man from a woman she will slaughter them.
A couple of new polls today including this one from one of the pollsters that models Tory swingback. Surely swingback adjustments become a bit more complicated at this stage of a campaign, but it seems a significant number of people remain undecided.
This one would see me narrowly lose by £50 bet with @Leon
Evidence perhaps the Reform surge is faltering. I don't think this down to his Putin comments, those seemed to have very limited cut through. More likely just the usual drift back to established parties when the actual election draws close.
And some of those polled will already have cast postal votes by now.
I hope "Reform" do badly in all seats including Clacton. Farage is the Oswald Mosely of the modern age. An absolute disgrace who provides succour to our enemies. How anyone who claims to be in the slightest bit patriotic could vote for him and his odious crew of weirdos, racists and misfits staggers me.
Well 10-15% of people will im afraid.
Im already seeing chatter on x from reform people talking about rigged polls and the like. From that its one step to talking about a rigged election.
Got to ask how do you rig an election in the UK?
Please note I want all the details no matter how insignificant.
Because the reality is that you can't do it in the UK...
The book lists various methods. I can think of three off the top of my head that can be done in the UK: ballot-box stuffing (delivering boxes with some votes in them, or substituting boxes), gerrymandering, voter intimidation. Bribery/Blackmail of the Returning officers should also yield results.
Some of these constituency odds really are quite astonishing.
Pity I quit gambling quite some time ago.
Are the bookies accepting decent stakes?
Last time I looked on Betfair Exchange there was hardly any liquidity wrt most constituencies, which was disappointing. I wanted to place a bet on the Greens in Isle of Wight East which I think they might unexpectedly win, but there wasn't anything on offer.
You said that last night. Why do you think that?
There was one in scotland I believe where a London party won the by-election unexpectedly and someone mistakenly put the ballot papers beside the incinerator 5 minutes after the count and they mysteriously all got burned
A couple of new polls today including this one from one of the pollsters that models Tory swingback. Surely swingback adjustments become a bit more complicated at this stage of a campaign, but it seems a significant number of people remain undecided.
This one would see me narrowly lose by £50 bet with @Leon
Evidence perhaps the Reform surge is faltering. I don't think this down to his Putin comments, those seemed to have very limited cut through. More likely just the usual drift back to established parties when the actual election draws close.
And some of those polled will already have cast postal votes by now.
A week and a half until the big day and Lib Dems seem to be still completely in the dark as to how it's going to go. This could end up ranging from epoch-making triumph (becoming official opposition) to major let-down, with lots of seats staying blue with split Lib-Lab voting.
What should the objectives be? What constitutes a good night for the party? I would list them from highest priority to aspirational below:
1. Add seats and retain existing ones - if we don't manage this we might as well give up (90%+ chance) 2. Overtake SNP into 3rd in parliament: gives us guaranteed questions in PMQs and more news coverage (60% chance but not a given. I think the SNP will benefit from swingback and unionist tactical unwind, so may well outperform seat expectations) 3. Poll higher in vote share than Reform: important for the message it sends to the post-election Tories, the media, and the voters, though a high Reform share and low seat count may help in the PR fight. (50% chance - I expect Reform vote share to undershoot polling but possibly not by enough) 4. Equal or better the 1997 result (30% chance - a challenge as our vote share is well down from then, so only happens with Tory collapse and a lot of tactical voting) 5. Equal or better 2001-2005, our high water mark in living memory. (20%) 6. Become official opposition (1%. Not going to happen)
A couple of new polls today including this one from one of the pollsters that models Tory swingback. Surely swingback adjustments become a bit more complicated at this stage of a campaign, but it seems a significant number of people remain undecided.
This one would see me narrowly lose by £50 bet with @Leon
Evidence perhaps the Reform surge is faltering. I don't think this down to his Putin comments, those seemed to have very limited cut through. More likely just the usual drift back to established parties when the actual election draws close.
And some of those polled will already have cast postal votes by now.
Hah yes. Very close to losing my bet on this poll!
If you do win then you’ve earned it. Brave call
I reckon that chunky reform drop IS Putin thingy cutting through. Farage made a major error - he was tone deaf and misread the British room
Apparently only 5% of people polled over the weekend mentioned the Farage story as something they'd seen in the news. I was surprised, but then reminded myself I am terminally online and politically engaged.
Reminder. Everyone confidently predicted the polls would begin to narrow a year out from the election. With just over a week to go till polling day we still don't have a credible data point that shows the Tories have hit the floor of their support.
I don't think everyone predicted that. I think many would have noted it often happens .
Yes. I don’t believe these theories that he is playing 12 dimensional chess and he wants to lose and he wants le pen to win so she can screw up governing and ruin her POTFR chances
I reckon he believed his own hype. He is jupiterian! He thought he could terrify the French into abandoning the far right and far left and return to the centre. It seems like the opposite is happening
This is a potential earthquake as big as ours. However the French do have that two vote system so macron may yet claw back something…
Monevator pointing out the absurdity of the governments plan on normal minimum pension age increase. Nothing wrong with the policy but on the implementation side they forgot to (or couldn't be bothered as were reminded) include transitional arrangements. This is the kind of low level crap I really hope Labour try and get right, instead of worrying about the next days headlines on stuff they can't fix. Not exciting for anyone but makes a difference in aggregate.
"Up to 5 April 2028 most people can tap into their pension from age 55. Overnight, from 6 April 2028 the minimum pension age rises to 57. Critically, there’s no transitional arrangement in place. So if you’re not 57 on 6 April 2028, you will generally not be able to access your pension. Even if you were doing so because you were over-55 before that date! In the case of someone born on 5 April 1973, they will have precisely 24 hours to enjoy their pension before it closes for another two years."
I'd question "nothing wrong with the policy" it's disadvantaging younger people again and I'm not sure why unless they were trying for a one-off cash flow boost in Govt paid pensions. If you'd based longterm financial planning on taking your pension or lump sum at that point, to clear your mortgage for instance, you've now got to make other provisions. As to the lack of a transition that's just an easily foreseen consequence that should have been avoided and typical of the utter incompetence of this Government.
Comments
In past elections we have had ‘Shy Tories’.
Could Shy Reformers be a thing in 2024?
On the one hand, you might think Reform voters are loud and proud of it, just like Farage’s personality would suggest.
But could we see some quieter types end up thinking ‘Sod it’ and ticking Reform box on the day?
I know the comparison isn’t perfect - but for both Brexit and 2016 Trump, you could point to a Leaver/Right wing vote segment that turned out unexpectedly for their outcome/candidate on the day.
And to be clear, I’m talking about a couple of percent vote share bump here, not an 80 seat surge or something crazy.
The business model for Turkish barber shops is not to be a barber yourself but to open a shop and then rent the chairs to actual barbers who can then ply their trade without the massive overhead of buying their own salon or needing to trouble HMRC. Trouble is it became a get rich quick scheme and there were soon too many shops for the number of hair stylists coming off the boat.
Likewise early American candy stores were (it is said) profitable. Open up in Oxford Street and cater not to Americans but to other tourists who are willing to pay over the odds to try the sweets they'd seen on the big screen for thousands of pounds less than actually holidaying in New York. But again copycats meant supply outstripped demand. Even supermarkets got in on the act, stocking any old American rubbish before axing most of their ranges.
A recent phenomenon I came across at Liverpool Street but are apparently everywhere across Europe is shops selling rubber ducks.
Remember this isn't even a system that had double book entry - because it wasn't deemed necessary...
Also I recently worked on a similar counter based banking system - it audits every click, every search, literally everything a user does - and even then it would form only part of the evidence taken to court. Yet Horizon did a 1/1000th of the audit things and was deemed enough by itself....
https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Rig-Election-Nic-Cheeseman/dp/0300204434
https://www.eisa.org/pdf/JAE18.2Lodge.pdf
The book lists various methods. I can think of three off the top of my head that can be done in the UK: ballot-box stuffing (delivering boxes with some votes in them, or substituting boxes), gerrymandering, voter intimidation. Bribery/Blackmail of the Returning officers should also yield results. You said that last night. Why do you think that?
I don’t expect to please every reader, but Reform supporters run scared of healthy, informed discussion
PETRONELLA WYATT"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2024/06/24/attacking-farage-become-perilous-i-learnt-hard-way/
I recently had a girlfriend who considered herself left wing Labour, and was strongly pro-Corbyn. Despite this, on most issues apart from economics (which were loony left), her views were generally much more right wing than mine although I suppose I mean authoritarian at least as often liberal. On the progressive left people often tend to conflate progressive and left-wing with being liberal when they don't have to be at all, as the history of communism shows.
Over all through, in a week’s time I can just about see a 38/28 result on a low turn out if I squint. That would mean 364 Labour seats and 200 Tory on electoral calculus, and you can get some good odds around that scenario.
https://x.com/euro_projects/status/1804940781452480708/photo/2 Denmark: Metro extension
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cll476qzm85o#:~:text=About £1.4bn worth,government deal of the pandemic. UK: PPE for landfill
So I think all 3 routes you outline simply don't exist in the UK....
Of course in a situation where the prosecution doesn't disclose evidence which might be exculpatory, and the defence has no access to the system in question, that isn't possible.
One solution might be to introduce a much stronger disclosure rule in computer cases, with strong penalties for failing to disclose.
At the moment there's a disclosure rule, but it seems to me that there's an assumption of prosecutorial good conduct, and not much in the way of real world remedies.
The French tried using gowns that were past their date - they literally fell apart.
Apparently, reusable PPE is not possible. Despite it being used in other contexts.
ETA protestors are doing Farage's work for him, and cheaper than paid stooges.
This is the same flawed policy of sending them to Rwanda. It isn't going to stop anyone. Did you hear the interview with the father of the girl drowned on that overcrowded boat on the TV a few weeks ago. None of this is going to stop them.
If punishment is small fines - trust the system unless proven otherwise
If punishment is lengthy jail terms - leave it open for the defence to explore reasonable doubt
Remember the Conservative minister resigning in disgust because they were nodding through obvious frauds?
NEW THREAD
Whether they actually care too much about Reforms policies in detail or just want to kick the big three parties in the proverbials is more debatable.
My wife / parents haven't got a clue on that type of thing..
Make failure to disclose exculpatory evidence a strict liability offence (as with eg breaches of health and safety regs), punishable by fines, and criminal prosecutions in the most egregious cases.
It would make prosecutors a great deal more scrupulous about discharging their legal responsibilities.
I don't know what the answer is, but this man lost his daughter as a consequence. People don't take these risks for trivial reasons.
"From a sheer psychological perspective I wonder if there's a small but significant number (of the general population, rather than PBers) who are deluding themselves along the lines of 'I will continue to vote Conservative, I can't vote for that nasty man Farage' and that is also how they are responding to pollsters. Because they themselves genuinely believe it. And they will kid themselves that they are Con voters right up until July 4th.
But on polling day, they may actually get into the voting booth and go 'go on then, the Tories have lost anyway and Farage is the only one talking sense on immigration' and give Reform a cheeky X. Feeling a bit naughty for having done so. Like popping into Asda for your essentials and hoping you don't get caught by one of your Waitrose-shopping friends.
No scientific basis for this - just a weird gut feeling I have."
Most of my friends are status-seeking middle class types, for whom the idea of voting reform, or at least openly admitting voting reform, is seen as a bit of an infra dig, council estate type thing to do. But I suspect in secret at least some of them will break for reform without wanting to admit it.
However I think Farage's Putinist gaffe may have reduced those numbers somewhat. Hopefully.
Widespread violation of the no photography rule opens the way to bribery and intimidation of voters who can now be asked for a selfie to prove how they voted.
And it has been admitted the photo ID rule was designed to suppress Labour votes. (Next time, look out for spurious justifications for lowering the voting age!)
Targeted below the radar social media adverts and posts mean anything can be said about any politician and if they do not know about it (because it is targeted, remember) they can't counter it.
ETA: and all those lovely, lovely expat voters. Let's hope they've not gone off the party that delivered Brexit!
As it happens when I did it I came in a similar place. Top Left. Did it a few times until I got there.
Those not in government were in a far less informed position to know what PPE was needed, how much had been secured, or ascertain how reliable prospective suppliers were.
What seems now evident is that the amounts contracted for were way in excess of anything that might eventually have been needed, and that government continued contacting with dodgy suppliers well after it had hit what it needed.
Obviously there will be overbuying in an emergency, but you can still take steps to mitigate fraud, excess profits and eventual surplus stock.
It appears that there was zero effort at any of the above.
We can then wait twenty years and then start pardoning anyone who was hard done by.
You don’t have to catch 100% it has to be a sufficiently high percentage to deter. It’s hard to say what that is as we’re too spineless to try. But eventually we will have to or the voters will do it for us by electing Nazis who will sink the boats
Personally I’d combine a tow back procedure with some kind of Rwandan plan. The double deterrent would stop the boats completely
The eu will also do something like this as Democratic governments realise that electorates are quite prepared to go hard right if this is not done
Your reminder of the latest polling in France ahead of Sunday’s election
https://x.com/rymmomtaz/status/1805278085840879787?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Today's IFOP poll:
Far right: 36% vs 19% of votes in 2022 parliamentary elex
Left alliance: 29.5% vs 26%
Macron: 20.5% vs 26%
Conservatives: 7% vs 13%
That is what surprised many punters: that the insiders could get more than a fiver on before the bookies smelt a rat.
Very easy to create computer systems that don’t delete or change *anything* - deletion or change is implemented as adding another record saying “delete” or “change”. So you have a history of everything that has ever happened. And you can wind forward and backwards to see the chain of events.
"Up to 5 April 2028 most people can tap into their pension from age 55.
Overnight, from 6 April 2028 the minimum pension age rises to 57.
Critically, there’s no transitional arrangement in place.
So if you’re not 57 on 6 April 2028, you will generally not be able to access your pension. Even if you were doing so because you were over-55 before that date!
In the case of someone born on 5 April 1973, they will have precisely 24 hours to enjoy their pension before it closes for another two years."
https://monevator.com/minimum-pension-age-increase/
Seeing you start to spin for the LibDems, then dressing it up as ‘evidence’ is disappointing.
Alliance Party 78%
Social Democratic & Labour Party 66%
People Before Profit 64%
Sinn Féin 63%
Ulster Unionist Party 49%
Democratic Unionist Party 29%
Traditional Unionist Voice 27%
I tried it for NI because I thought it would be more interesting!
I reckon he believed his own hype. He is jupiterian! He thought he could terrify the French into abandoning the far right and far left and return to the centre. It seems like the opposite is
happening
This is a potential earthquake as big as ours. However the French do have that two vote system so macron may yet claw back something…
This one would see me narrowly lose by £50 bet with @Leon
Evidence perhaps the Reform surge is faltering. I don't think this down to his Putin comments, those seemed to have very limited cut through. More likely just the usual drift back to established parties when the actual election draws close.
And some of those polled will already have cast postal votes by now.
NEW:
@RestisPolitics
/ JLP poll, June 21st - 24th 2024
*Reform UK falls back, Labour lead at 16 points*
Change on last week in brackets
LAB: 41% (+1)
CON: 25% (+2)
REF: 15% (-3)
LDEM: 11% (+2)
GRN: 5% (-)
Tables: http://jlpartners.co.uk/polling-results
https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1805580531364438461
https://x.com/toryfibs/status/1805584056681144780?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
If you do win then you’ve earned it. Brave call
I reckon that chunky reform drop IS Putin thingy cutting through. Farage made a major error - he was tone deaf and misread the British room
What should the objectives be? What constitutes a good night for the party? I would list them from highest priority to aspirational below:
1. Add seats and retain existing ones - if we don't manage this we might as well give up (90%+ chance)
2. Overtake SNP into 3rd in parliament: gives us guaranteed questions in PMQs and more news coverage (60% chance but not a given. I think the SNP will benefit from swingback and unionist tactical unwind, so may well outperform seat expectations)
3. Poll higher in vote share than Reform: important for the message it sends to the post-election Tories, the media, and the voters, though a high Reform share and low seat count may help in the PR fight. (50% chance - I expect Reform vote share to undershoot polling but possibly not by enough)
4. Equal or better the 1997 result (30% chance - a challenge as our vote share is well down from then, so only happens with Tory collapse and a lot of tactical voting)
5. Equal or better 2001-2005, our high water mark in living memory. (20%)
6. Become official opposition (1%. Not going to happen)
As to the lack of a transition that's just an easily foreseen consequence that should have been avoided and typical of the utter incompetence of this Government.