He isn't exactly wrong is he? It's a damn sight more damaging to British interests than anything Kim Philby managed.
You would have been fully on board when Truss floated the idea.
If you were recruiting spies against the UK, and one said they could get the UK to surrender its own territory, home to a Western military base, to a non-aligned country sympathetic to the biggest geopolitical rival of the West, and as a bonus, extract £18bn from the UK payable immediately, you would bite their arm off.
He isn't exactly wrong is he? It's a damn sight more damaging to British interests than anything Kim Philby managed.
You would have been fully on board when Truss floated the idea.
I am told by very reliable sources that David Cameron (pbuh) saw the outline of the framework of the deal Dave’s response was ‘WTAF has Truss been smoking’ and kiboshed the deal.
"The replacement of our constitutional system of government with the whims of an unelected private citizen is a coup. The U.S. president has no authority to cut programs created and funded by Congress, and a private citizen tapped by a president has even less standing to try anything so radical."
Heather Cox Richardson email.
Some people act as though the President has no more business getting involved in politics than King Charles.
The President does not control the purse. The President can not create or destroy government departments. Those are privileges that belong to Congress.
Having a separation of powers is a terrible way to run a government. Our system is much better, or was before we tried to imitate the Americans.
Whether or not it is a good system, it is THE system. Americans love to bang on about the Constitution and how great their system of government is, but right now it seem the President is above the law, he has usurped the powers of Congress, and the Constitution is of no more worth than an old till receipt from Poundland.
Have Americans never heard of judicial review of executive action? It's England's favourite sport. Perhaps we should wait a week or two to see who gets round to issuing proceedings and what the judiciary say.
The stage in the advance of authoritarianism where the executive simply ignores the courts and overrules them by just carrying on by force if necessary is a well trodden path.
He isn't exactly wrong is he? It's a damn sight more damaging to British interests than anything Kim Philby managed.
You would have been fully on board when Truss floated the idea.
If you were recruiting spies against the UK, and one said they could get the UK to surrender its own territory, home to a Western military base, to a non-aligned country sympathetic to the biggest geopolitical rival of the West, and as a bonus, extract £18bn from the UK payable immediately, you would bite their arm off.
He isn't exactly wrong is he? It's a damn sight more damaging to British interests than anything Kim Philby managed.
You would have been fully on board when Truss floated the idea.
I am told by very reliable sources that David Cameron (pbuh) saw the outline of the framework of the deal Dave’s response was ‘WTAF has Truss been smoking’ and kiboshed the deal.
I don't understand what Mauritius' negotiating position was. No we don't want the £9bn we want £18bn. How did they know that Starmer would give them that, and not just walk away with a sigh of relief?
He isn't exactly wrong is he? It's a damn sight more damaging to British interests than anything Kim Philby managed.
You would have been fully on board when Truss floated the idea.
I am told by very reliable sources that David Cameron (pbuh) saw the outline of the framework of the deal Dave’s response was ‘WTAF has Truss been smoking’ and kiboshed the deal.
No you weren't.
Negotiations did not even commence till Truss was out of office.
He isn't exactly wrong is he? It's a damn sight more damaging to British interests than anything Kim Philby managed.
You would have been fully on board when Truss floated the idea.
If you were recruiting spies against the UK, and one said they could get the UK to surrender its own territory, home to a Western military base, to a non-aligned country sympathetic to the biggest geopolitical rival of the West, and as a bonus, extract £18bn from the UK payable immediately, you would bite their arm off.
It was all of those things back in 2022.
So Labour’s best defence of this deal is
1. Yes it’s an absolutely shit Tory deal that’s why we have no choice but to carry on with it
I don't understand what Mauritius' negotiating position was. No we don't want the £9bn we want £18bn. How did they know that Starmer would give them that, and not just walk away with a sigh of relief?
I believe the ask has shifted from £9billion to £9billion index linked, so the real present value has ~ doubled.
I don't understand what Mauritius' negotiating position was. No we don't want the £9bn we want £18bn. How did they know that Starmer would give them that, and not just walk away with a sigh of relief?
He isn't exactly wrong is he? It's a damn sight more damaging to British interests than anything Kim Philby managed.
You would have been fully on board when Truss floated the idea.
I am told by very reliable sources that David Cameron (pbuh) saw the outline of the framework of the deal Dave’s response was ‘WTAF has Truss been smoking’ and kiboshed the deal.
No you weren't.
Negotiations did not even commence till Truss was out of office.
I said the framework, not the deal.
Here’s what her own spokesman said last year.
But Mr Cleverly’s camp has hit back with a briefing that blames former prime minister Liz Truss and suggests that the loss of the islands is part of the toxic legacy of her 49-day premiership.
A source close to Mr Cleverly said: “Ultimately, the direction is set by the prime minister on these matters. [Liz] Truss’s decision surprised many people. These included James Cleverly, who inherited responsibility for the talks when he became foreign secretary and had to make the announcement.”
But a spokesman for Ms Truss told The Independent: "It was Boris Johnson who asked Liz to talk to Prime Minister Jugnauth about this at COP26, which she did.
If Starmer genuinely signs this deal it could finish him off. It is that bad
Hats off to you. You have absolutely stolen the thread. No one is talking about the Tories and Reform, just about Chagos. You can chalk that down as another win.
He isn't exactly wrong is he? It's a damn sight more damaging to British interests than anything Kim Philby managed.
You would have been fully on board when Truss floated the idea.
I am told by very reliable sources that David Cameron (pbuh) saw the outline of the framework of the deal Dave’s response was ‘WTAF has Truss been smoking’ and kiboshed the deal.
It really doesn’t make sense
It’s like giving Spain money to take Gibraltar off our hands.
An example of the sort of problem that may need to be managed once the new laws come in:
Parenting site Mumsnet says it has stopped users from sharing pictures after it was targeted with images of child sexual abuse.
Company founder Justine Roberts told the BBC the "horrific incident" had been reported to police after the images were posted on the platform over several hours late on Sunday.
It has now suspended the facility to post pictures on the site as a temporary measure and is planning to introduce artificial intelligence (AI) filters to flag "illegal" and "disturbing" images before they appear.
Some Mumsnet users have raised concerns about the length of time the images were visible and the site's use of volunteer moderators during overnight hours in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93qw3lw4kvo
Question from an analogue dinosaur: To post something on Mumsnet do you have to be in some manner registered so that someone in the system can uniquely identify you to the police? What this report describes is a very serious offence by the person posting.
He isn't exactly wrong is he? It's a damn sight more damaging to British interests than anything Kim Philby managed.
You would have been fully on board when Truss floated the idea.
I am told by very reliable sources that David Cameron (pbuh) saw the outline of the framework of the deal Dave’s response was ‘WTAF has Truss been smoking’ and kiboshed the deal.
It really doesn’t make sense
It’s like giving Spain money to take Gibraltar off our hands.
I bet it's going to cost a lot more than 18bn to give Gibraltar back
He isn't exactly wrong is he? It's a damn sight more damaging to British interests than anything Kim Philby managed.
You would have been fully on board when Truss floated the idea.
I am told by very reliable sources that David Cameron (pbuh) saw the outline of the framework of the deal Dave’s response was ‘WTAF has Truss been smoking’ and kiboshed the deal.
No you weren't.
Negotiations did not even commence till Truss was out of office.
I said the framework, not the deal.
Here’s what her own spokesman said last year.
But Mr Cleverly’s camp has hit back with a briefing that blames former prime minister Liz Truss and suggests that the loss of the islands is part of the toxic legacy of her 49-day premiership.
A source close to Mr Cleverly said: “Ultimately, the direction is set by the prime minister on these matters. [Liz] Truss’s decision surprised many people. These included James Cleverly, who inherited responsibility for the talks when he became foreign secretary and had to make the announcement.”
But a spokesman for Ms Truss told The Independent: "It was Boris Johnson who asked Liz to talk to Prime Minister Jugnauth about this at COP26, which she did.
That's what I like to see. All calamitous paths leading back to Boris Johnson.
He isn't exactly wrong is he? It's a damn sight more damaging to British interests than anything Kim Philby managed.
You would have been fully on board when Truss floated the idea.
I am told by very reliable sources that David Cameron (pbuh) saw the outline of the framework of the deal Dave’s response was ‘WTAF has Truss been smoking’ and kiboshed the deal.
It really doesn’t make sense
It’s like giving Spain money to take Gibraltar off our hands.
"I have altered the deal, Calrissian. Pray I don't alter it further!"
An example of the sort of problem that may need to be managed once the new laws come in:
Parenting site Mumsnet says it has stopped users from sharing pictures after it was targeted with images of child sexual abuse.
Company founder Justine Roberts told the BBC the "horrific incident" had been reported to police after the images were posted on the platform over several hours late on Sunday.
It has now suspended the facility to post pictures on the site as a temporary measure and is planning to introduce artificial intelligence (AI) filters to flag "illegal" and "disturbing" images before they appear.
Some Mumsnet users have raised concerns about the length of time the images were visible and the site's use of volunteer moderators during overnight hours in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93qw3lw4kvo
Question from an analogue dinosaur: To post something on Mumsnet do you have to be in some manner registered so that someone in the system can uniquely identify you to the police? What this report describes is a very serious offence by the person posting.
We get trolls here on PB. All you need is a valid email account that (AIUI) is not on certain blacklists. No other checks are done that I'm aware of. Besides, what checks can realistically be done?
The interesting thing is how the authorities can track down who posted such images, even if they are in the UK. If the person doing it is stupid, quite a lot. If they are clever, they may well get away with it.
He isn't exactly wrong is he? It's a damn sight more damaging to British interests than anything Kim Philby managed.
You would have been fully on board when Truss floated the idea.
I am told by very reliable sources that David Cameron (pbuh) saw the outline of the framework of the deal Dave’s response was ‘WTAF has Truss been smoking’ and kiboshed the deal.
No you weren't.
Negotiations did not even commence till Truss was out of office.
I said the framework, not the deal.
Here’s what her own spokesman said last year.
But Mr Cleverly’s camp has hit back with a briefing that blames former prime minister Liz Truss and suggests that the loss of the islands is part of the toxic legacy of her 49-day premiership.
A source close to Mr Cleverly said: “Ultimately, the direction is set by the prime minister on these matters. [Liz] Truss’s decision surprised many people. These included James Cleverly, who inherited responsibility for the talks when he became foreign secretary and had to make the announcement.”
But a spokesman for Ms Truss told The Independent: "It was Boris Johnson who asked Liz to talk to Prime Minister Jugnauth about this at COP26, which she did.
Sorry to sound repetitive, but the *commencement* of the negotiations happened *after* Truss left office. Truss could have promised Mauritius the world on a stick (I don't think she did; it's more Cleverly and the FO's style) but she was out of office before the talks even began, under PM Rishi Sunak. Neither Sunak nor Cleverly was under any o obligation to even start negotiations, much less follow anything Liz Truss had to say on the matter.
An example of the sort of problem that may need to be managed once the new laws come in:
Parenting site Mumsnet says it has stopped users from sharing pictures after it was targeted with images of child sexual abuse.
Company founder Justine Roberts told the BBC the "horrific incident" had been reported to police after the images were posted on the platform over several hours late on Sunday.
It has now suspended the facility to post pictures on the site as a temporary measure and is planning to introduce artificial intelligence (AI) filters to flag "illegal" and "disturbing" images before they appear.
Some Mumsnet users have raised concerns about the length of time the images were visible and the site's use of volunteer moderators during overnight hours in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93qw3lw4kvo
Question from an analogue dinosaur: To post something on Mumsnet do you have to be in some manner registered so that someone in the system can uniquely identify you to the police? What this report describes is a very serious offence by the person posting.
We get trolls here on PB. All you need is a valid email account that (AIUI) is not on certain blacklists. No other checks are done that I'm aware of. Besides, what checks can realistically be done?
The interesting thing is how the authorities can track down who posted such images, even if they are in the UK. If the person doing it is stupid, quite a lot. If they are clever, they may well get away with it.
A more interesting question is why do it?
To close down a website.
Remember the strict liability regarding child abuse pictures.
People up and down the country are absolutely furious about the betrayal of the Chagos deal. The voters have never been so angry. A stunning 5% know where the Chagos Islands are, and nearly the same proportion know the details of the deal. At a guess.
He isn't exactly wrong is he? It's a damn sight more damaging to British interests than anything Kim Philby managed.
You would have been fully on board when Truss floated the idea.
I am told by very reliable sources that David Cameron (pbuh) saw the outline of the framework of the deal Dave’s response was ‘WTAF has Truss been smoking’ and kiboshed the deal.
It really doesn’t make sense
It’s like giving Spain money to take Gibraltar off our hands.
If this was just about the islands, we could just hand them over, but all the money stuff is about the military base. It’s like giving Spain money to notionally take Gibraltar off our hands, but for, in reality, Gibraltar to remain a UK military base.
(One of the things I like best about it is Epstein's discussion of unresolved questions. Alas, we are unlikely to get answers to them unless Putin falls from power.)
He isn't exactly wrong is he? It's a damn sight more damaging to British interests than anything Kim Philby managed.
You would have been fully on board when Truss floated the idea.
I am told by very reliable sources that David Cameron (pbuh) saw the outline of the framework of the deal Dave’s response was ‘WTAF has Truss been smoking’ and kiboshed the deal.
It really doesn’t make sense
It’s like giving Spain money to take Gibraltar off our hands.
I bet it's going to cost a lot more than 18bn to give Gibraltar back
People up and down the country are absolutely furious about the betrayal of the Chagos deal. The voters have never been so angry. A stunning 5% know where the Chagos Islands are, and nearly the same proportion know the details of the deal. At a guess.
On the other hand 95% of voters will understand that £18bn is an enormous amount of money. That Starmer wants to give away. To a foreign country. So THEY can take OUR sovereign territory
People up and down the country are absolutely furious about the betrayal of the Chagos deal. The voters have never been so angry. A stunning 5% know where the Chagos Islands are, and nearly the same proportion know the details of the deal. At a guess.
Last polling had 40% against and 18% in favour. That was under old terms.
People up and down the country are absolutely furious about the betrayal of the Chagos deal. The voters have never been so angry. A stunning 5% know where the Chagos Islands are, and nearly the same proportion know the details of the deal. At a guess.
On the other hand 95% of voters will understand that £18bn is an enormous amount of money. That Starmer wants to give away. To a foreign country. So THEY can take OUR sovereign territory
"Why do you people in the media always focus on the negative side of things, when so much of what happens at this leisure centre is a success story? Last year, six hundred people visited this centre, and nearly five hundred returned home without any loss of life or serious injury!"
People up and down the country are absolutely furious about the betrayal of the Chagos deal. The voters have never been so angry. A stunning 5% know where the Chagos Islands are, and nearly the same proportion know the details of the deal. At a guess.
Last polling had 40% against and 18% in favour. That was under old terms.
The proposed “deal” is so mind numbingly stupid and wrong and self harming and treacherous I wonder if it has been deliberately “leaked” to the Times to
Sales of personalised number plates have more than doubled over the past decade, figures obtained by the BBC suggest.
More than 1.2 million transactions took place in 2024, up from about 500,000 in 2014, according to data from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).
That includes plates bought directly from the DVLA, as well as those that change hands privately. Plates can be bought for less than £50 – but the most lucrative combinations can fetch hundreds of thousands of pounds, external. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czdlr7q78qyo
The CPS wouldn’t have fallen for this if Starmer was still DPP.
Sam Kerr trial: officer did not mention impact of ‘stupid and white’ comments for 11 months, court hears
Defence claims PC Stephen Lovell only submitted second statement after the CPS declined to charge Matildas star
The Metropolitan police officer at the centre of Sam Kerr’s criminal trial did not mention being upset by being called “stupid and white” by the footballer in his first statement about the incident, a court has heard, and only included it in a further statement 11 months later.
On Monday, Kingston crown court heard that Kerr, 31, the captain of the Australian women’s football team and Chelsea’s star striker, called PC Stephen Lovell “fucking stupid and white” after he doubted her claim of being “held hostage” by a taxi driver after a night out with her partner Kristie Mewis in January 2023.
On Tuesday, it was revealed that the Crown Prosecution Service, the body which has the final say on whether a criminal prosecution can go ahead in England and Wales, initially decided against charging Kerr as the evidence did not meet the required threshold.
But the CPS decided to charge Kerr with racially aggravated intentional harassment after a second statement was provided by Lovell in December 2023, 11 months after the incident first happened. He said her comments had left him “shocked, upset and humiliated”. She denies the charges.
During cross-examination on Tuesday, Kerr’s defence barrister, Grace Forbes, asked Lovell about this first statement, which was submitted on 30 January 2023. She put it to Lovell: ““Your first statement made no mention of stupid and white having had an impact.”
Lovell said it did not.
She then accused Lovell of submitting a second statement in December 2023 “because the CPS declined to charge Kerr”, saying “only a year later did you make mention of these words having had an impact on you… The CPS didn’t identify charge. You knew that was the obstacle?”
“No,” Lovell said.
“You are claiming this impact purely to get a criminal charge over the line?” she asked him again.
An example of the sort of problem that may need to be managed once the new laws come in:
Parenting site Mumsnet says it has stopped users from sharing pictures after it was targeted with images of child sexual abuse.
Company founder Justine Roberts told the BBC the "horrific incident" had been reported to police after the images were posted on the platform over several hours late on Sunday.
It has now suspended the facility to post pictures on the site as a temporary measure and is planning to introduce artificial intelligence (AI) filters to flag "illegal" and "disturbing" images before they appear.
Some Mumsnet users have raised concerns about the length of time the images were visible and the site's use of volunteer moderators during overnight hours in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93qw3lw4kvo
Would anyone who viewed those foul images inadvertently be guilty of an offence ?
I wonder what would happen with this when the online safety act comes into force, would the site owners be guilty of an offence ?
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
People up and down the country are absolutely furious about the betrayal of the Chagos deal. The voters have never been so angry. A stunning 5% know where the Chagos Islands are, and nearly the same proportion know the details of the deal. At a guess.
Last polling had 40% against and 18% in favour. That was under old terms.
The proposed “deal” is so mind numbingly stupid and wrong and self harming and treacherous I wonder if it has been deliberately “leaked” to the Times to
1. Damage Starmer and
2. Scupper the deal before they can sign it
oh I hope so. Or hopefully Trump can save us on this
In light of yesterday’s climb down by Trump on Canadian and Mexican tariffs, this on the Ukraine rare earths “deal” is interesting because it appears on the surface to follow a similar dynamic:
Zelensky: "We are open to the fact that minerals can be developed with our partners who help us protect our land and push the enemy back with their weapons, their presence, sanctions packages. And this is absolutely fair. I talked about this back in September, when we had a meeting with President Trump."
The dynamic being that Trump demands something or else, that something has already largely been agreed to in principle by the other country, and a great deal is seen to be done. Faces saved everywhere.
If Zelenskyy is smart then getting Trump excited about minerals, something we know he’s coveting in Greenland, could put US and Ukrainian interests in close alignment,
People up and down the country are absolutely furious about the betrayal of the Chagos deal. The voters have never been so angry. A stunning 5% know where the Chagos Islands are, and nearly the same proportion know the details of the deal. At a guess.
Last polling had 40% against and 18% in favour. That was under old terms.
The proposed “deal” is so mind numbingly stupid and wrong and self harming and treacherous I wonder if it has been deliberately “leaked” to the Times to
1. Damage Starmer and
2. Scupper the deal before they can sign it
oh I hope so. Or hopefully Trump can save us on this
Sky reporting that Number 10 is not denying the £18bm figure
Stupefying. I hope it costs Keir his job, the fucking traitorous rat
An example of the sort of problem that may need to be managed once the new laws come in:
Parenting site Mumsnet says it has stopped users from sharing pictures after it was targeted with images of child sexual abuse.
Company founder Justine Roberts told the BBC the "horrific incident" had been reported to police after the images were posted on the platform over several hours late on Sunday.
It has now suspended the facility to post pictures on the site as a temporary measure and is planning to introduce artificial intelligence (AI) filters to flag "illegal" and "disturbing" images before they appear.
Some Mumsnet users have raised concerns about the length of time the images were visible and the site's use of volunteer moderators during overnight hours in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93qw3lw4kvo
Would anyone who viewed those foul images inadvertently be guilty of an offence ?
I wonder what would happen with this when the online safety act comes into force, would the site owners be guilty of an offence ?
Yes but as long as not done with intent that could be a defence.
Perhaps Starmer is leaning from Canada and is agreeing to all manner of silly things he never means to do and can throw overboard in exchange for escaping sanctions.
We honestly should have just given the islands to the yanks if we don’t have the balls to rebut the silly Mauritian claim anymore.
Further on the Letby developments. The BBC report (and the Guardian SFAICS don't) that the Letby team have not issued their full report but only a summary. So this may be a bit of a PR exercise and anything less good on behalf of Letby has been left out.
There is also the question of Why the PR exercise? None of this makes any difference to the CCRC, still less the famously austere and sceptical Court of Appeal (Crim Div).
PR exercise and an incompletely issued report. I advise wait and see.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
The CPS wouldn’t have fallen for this if Starmer was still DPP.
Sam Kerr trial: officer did not mention impact of ‘stupid and white’ comments for 11 months, court hears
Defence claims PC Stephen Lovell only submitted second statement after the CPS declined to charge Matildas star
The Metropolitan police officer at the centre of Sam Kerr’s criminal trial did not mention being upset by being called “stupid and white” by the footballer in his first statement about the incident, a court has heard, and only included it in a further statement 11 months later.
On Monday, Kingston crown court heard that Kerr, 31, the captain of the Australian women’s football team and Chelsea’s star striker, called PC Stephen Lovell “fucking stupid and white” after he doubted her claim of being “held hostage” by a taxi driver after a night out with her partner Kristie Mewis in January 2023.
On Tuesday, it was revealed that the Crown Prosecution Service, the body which has the final say on whether a criminal prosecution can go ahead in England and Wales, initially decided against charging Kerr as the evidence did not meet the required threshold.
But the CPS decided to charge Kerr with racially aggravated intentional harassment after a second statement was provided by Lovell in December 2023, 11 months after the incident first happened. He said her comments had left him “shocked, upset and humiliated”. She denies the charges.
During cross-examination on Tuesday, Kerr’s defence barrister, Grace Forbes, asked Lovell about this first statement, which was submitted on 30 January 2023. She put it to Lovell: ““Your first statement made no mention of stupid and white having had an impact.”
Lovell said it did not.
She then accused Lovell of submitting a second statement in December 2023 “because the CPS declined to charge Kerr”, saying “only a year later did you make mention of these words having had an impact on you… The CPS didn’t identify charge. You knew that was the obstacle?”
“No,” Lovell said.
“You are claiming this impact purely to get a criminal charge over the line?” she asked him again.
The CPS wouldn’t have fallen for this if Starmer was still DPP.
Sam Kerr trial: officer did not mention impact of ‘stupid and white’ comments for 11 months, court hears
Defence claims PC Stephen Lovell only submitted second statement after the CPS declined to charge Matildas star
The Metropolitan police officer at the centre of Sam Kerr’s criminal trial did not mention being upset by being called “stupid and white” by the footballer in his first statement about the incident, a court has heard, and only included it in a further statement 11 months later.
On Monday, Kingston crown court heard that Kerr, 31, the captain of the Australian women’s football team and Chelsea’s star striker, called PC Stephen Lovell “fucking stupid and white” after he doubted her claim of being “held hostage” by a taxi driver after a night out with her partner Kristie Mewis in January 2023.
On Tuesday, it was revealed that the Crown Prosecution Service, the body which has the final say on whether a criminal prosecution can go ahead in England and Wales, initially decided against charging Kerr as the evidence did not meet the required threshold.
But the CPS decided to charge Kerr with racially aggravated intentional harassment after a second statement was provided by Lovell in December 2023, 11 months after the incident first happened. He said her comments had left him “shocked, upset and humiliated”. She denies the charges.
During cross-examination on Tuesday, Kerr’s defence barrister, Grace Forbes, asked Lovell about this first statement, which was submitted on 30 January 2023. She put it to Lovell: ““Your first statement made no mention of stupid and white having had an impact.”
Lovell said it did not.
She then accused Lovell of submitting a second statement in December 2023 “because the CPS declined to charge Kerr”, saying “only a year later did you make mention of these words having had an impact on you… The CPS didn’t identify charge. You knew that was the obstacle?”
“No,” Lovell said.
“You are claiming this impact purely to get a criminal charge over the line?” she asked him again.
It's frankly ridiculous that a few mean words said can constitute a crime worthy of a trial at a county court.
She sounds like an unpleasant person, but this kind of thing really doesn't sound like it should reach this level at all. In fact it is worrying that it is not surprising that this case and others do reach this level.
The CPS wouldn’t have fallen for this if Starmer was still DPP.
Sam Kerr trial: officer did not mention impact of ‘stupid and white’ comments for 11 months, court hears
Defence claims PC Stephen Lovell only submitted second statement after the CPS declined to charge Matildas star
The Metropolitan police officer at the centre of Sam Kerr’s criminal trial did not mention being upset by being called “stupid and white” by the footballer in his first statement about the incident, a court has heard, and only included it in a further statement 11 months later.
On Monday, Kingston crown court heard that Kerr, 31, the captain of the Australian women’s football team and Chelsea’s star striker, called PC Stephen Lovell “fucking stupid and white” after he doubted her claim of being “held hostage” by a taxi driver after a night out with her partner Kristie Mewis in January 2023.
On Tuesday, it was revealed that the Crown Prosecution Service, the body which has the final say on whether a criminal prosecution can go ahead in England and Wales, initially decided against charging Kerr as the evidence did not meet the required threshold.
But the CPS decided to charge Kerr with racially aggravated intentional harassment after a second statement was provided by Lovell in December 2023, 11 months after the incident first happened. He said her comments had left him “shocked, upset and humiliated”. She denies the charges.
During cross-examination on Tuesday, Kerr’s defence barrister, Grace Forbes, asked Lovell about this first statement, which was submitted on 30 January 2023. She put it to Lovell: ““Your first statement made no mention of stupid and white having had an impact.”
Lovell said it did not.
She then accused Lovell of submitting a second statement in December 2023 “because the CPS declined to charge Kerr”, saying “only a year later did you make mention of these words having had an impact on you… The CPS didn’t identify charge. You knew that was the obstacle?”
“No,” Lovell said.
“You are claiming this impact purely to get a criminal charge over the line?” she asked him again.
It's frankly ridiculous that a few mean words said can constitute a crime worthy of a trial at a county court.
Trial at crown court, not even magistrates (though the accused did also vomit in a cab and not clean it up and smash a window that should still only have been a case for magistrates not a judge and jury)
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
@jimsciutto Breaking: FBI employees have sued the Acting Attorney General James McHenry, accusing the Justice Department of violating the Constitution and privacy laws by demanding that agents complete a survey allegedly designed to “purge” bureau personnel who were involved in investigations related to President Donald Trump and the January 6 US Capitol attack.
They aren't, as I showed earlier the Tories have been losing many of their 2024 voters over 50 to Reform. Yet they have gained some voters under 50 from Labour and the LDs.
Indeed Kemi has made the biggest net gains for the Conservatives with under 50s since Cameron if you believe Yougov, just lots of pensioners and late middle aged men have gone off in a huff to Nige
BREAKING: The White House is preparing an executive order to eliminate the Department of Education, two sources familiar with the plans tell @NBCNews.
"We don't need no education!!"
Clearly worked for the Orange Don to be fair.
TBF we probably have often wondered whether our Dept of Ed needs to do much more than send out annual cheques to counties (remember them) to divvy out to schools so that they can teach small children to read and write and pay the teachers, and employ a couple of people competent in each subject to remind the counties (supposing the subject be history) the difference between Thomas of Woodstock and Henry Bolingbroke's respective wives and suchlike.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
But the question is why do anything at all? Tell Mauritius and China to do one, send what little naval forces we have and park them there in case Xi gets any ideas from Trump.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
@jimsciutto Breaking: FBI employees have sued the Acting Attorney General James McHenry, accusing the Justice Department of violating the Constitution and privacy laws by demanding that agents complete a survey allegedly designed to “purge” bureau personnel who were involved in investigations related to President Donald Trump and the January 6 US Capitol attack.
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
Yup the idea that we're "upholding the rule of law" or whatever they're banging on about is laughable. If as much as £1 worth of investment was withdrawn in the event the government ignored the "ruling" from the kangaroo court I'd be shocked. It's not at all credible.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
That's if you accept the court decision at all and don't believe they're acting as a mouthpiece for China. You people are incredibly naive, those "judges" aren't to be trusted.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
I'm mainly confused why the Mauritians seem to be able to get extra concessions from us at this point - I cannot see how we would look worse for sticking with previous terms, for those that already look on us negatively about the whole affair. The government has denied that it is desperate to get a deal over the line, but it sure looks like it, given any cost would in any case be over a long period presumably, so there's no rush to sign from either side.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
£18bn has an impact on our lives. It makes us £18bn poorer and requires tax increases or spending cuts to pay for. Giving it away is stupid, but not really enough to get worked up about, paying them £18bn to take it from us is mental to the point I'm not sure if Starmer is a Chinese plant.
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
It's nothing like Russia leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It's more like Russia leasing Sevastopol from Eritrea. Chagos is nowhere near Mauritius.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
The Yougov poll in the header shows Reform in 2nd place in Scotland - 17%. I know it's a subsample, caveats etc but it will be interesting to see how their vote settles up here. Need a Scotland only poll to see if they're ahead of Slab
Still a long way from winning a Scottish westminster seat, but there should be some very nervous Tory MSPs going into next years Holyrood vote. It looks like the drop in Slab has went to SNP, with a smaller chunk to Reform
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
It's nothing like Russia leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It's more like Russia leasing Sevastopol from Eritrea. Chagos is nowhere near Mauritius.
It’s the closest country apart from the Maldives. And a heck of a lot closer than Britain.
Comments
The stage in the advance of authoritarianism where the executive simply ignores the courts and overrules them by just carrying on by force if necessary is a well trodden path.
A near miss.
Negotiations did not even commence till Truss was out of office.
1. Yes it’s an absolutely shit Tory deal that’s why we have no choice but to carry on with it
And
2. We’ve made it twice as bad
off. It is that bad
Here’s what her own spokesman said last year.
But Mr Cleverly’s camp has hit back with a briefing that blames former prime minister Liz Truss and suggests that the loss of the islands is part of the toxic legacy of her 49-day premiership.
A source close to Mr Cleverly said: “Ultimately, the direction is set by the prime minister on these matters. [Liz] Truss’s decision surprised many people. These included James Cleverly, who inherited responsibility for the talks when he became foreign secretary and had to make the announcement.”
But a spokesman for Ms Truss told The Independent: "It was Boris Johnson who asked Liz to talk to Prime Minister Jugnauth about this at COP26, which she did.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/01/10/theres-more-support-than-opposition-for-starmer-giving-the-chagos-islands-to-mauritius/
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
BREAKING: The White House is preparing an executive order to eliminate the Department of Education, two sources familiar with the plans tell @NBCNews.
The interesting thing is how the authorities can track down who posted such images, even if they are in the UK. If the person doing it is stupid, quite a lot. If they are clever, they may well get away with it.
A more interesting question is why do it?
o obligation to even start negotiations, much less follow anything Liz Truss had to say on the matter.
Remember the strict liability regarding child abuse pictures.
A stunning 5% know where the Chagos Islands are, and nearly the same proportion know the details of the deal. At a guess.
(One of the things I like best about it is Epstein's discussion of unresolved questions. Alas, we are unlikely to get answers to them unless Putin falls from power.)
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_natglobalpoll_20250130.html
1. Damage Starmer and
2. Scupper the deal before they can sign it
Sales of personalised number plates have more than doubled over the past decade, figures obtained by the BBC suggest.
More than 1.2 million transactions took place in 2024, up from about 500,000 in 2014, according to data from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).
That includes plates bought directly from the DVLA, as well as those that change hands privately. Plates can be bought for less than £50 – but the most lucrative combinations can fetch hundreds of thousands of pounds, external.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czdlr7q78qyo
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4kZSxUrHkjk
40-second video of Jimmy Carr talking politics (no jokes)
The CPS wouldn’t have fallen for this if Starmer was still DPP.
Sam Kerr trial: officer did not mention impact of ‘stupid and white’ comments for 11 months, court hears
Defence claims PC Stephen Lovell only submitted second statement after the CPS declined to charge Matildas star
The Metropolitan police officer at the centre of Sam Kerr’s criminal trial did not mention being upset by being called “stupid and white” by the footballer in his first statement about the incident, a court has heard, and only included it in a further statement 11 months later.
On Monday, Kingston crown court heard that Kerr, 31, the captain of the Australian women’s football team and Chelsea’s star striker, called PC Stephen Lovell “fucking stupid and white” after he doubted her claim of being “held hostage” by a taxi driver after a night out with her partner Kristie Mewis in January 2023.
On Tuesday, it was revealed that the Crown Prosecution Service, the body which has the final say on whether a criminal prosecution can go ahead in England and Wales, initially decided against charging Kerr as the evidence did not meet the required threshold.
But the CPS decided to charge Kerr with racially aggravated intentional harassment after a second statement was provided by Lovell in December 2023, 11 months after the incident first happened. He said her comments had left him “shocked, upset and humiliated”. She denies the charges.
During cross-examination on Tuesday, Kerr’s defence barrister, Grace Forbes, asked Lovell about this first statement, which was submitted on 30 January 2023. She put it to Lovell: ““Your first statement made no mention of stupid and white having had an impact.”
Lovell said it did not.
She then accused Lovell of submitting a second statement in December 2023 “because the CPS declined to charge Kerr”, saying “only a year later did you make mention of these words having had an impact on you… The CPS didn’t identify charge. You knew that was the obstacle?”
“No,” Lovell said.
“You are claiming this impact purely to get a criminal charge over the line?” she asked him again.
“No,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/feb/04/sam-kerr-trial-officer-did-not-mention-stupid-and-white-comments-11-months-the-cps-decided-to-charge-kerr-after-a-second-statement-was-provided-by-lovell-in-december-2023-11-months-ntwnfb
I wonder what would happen with this when the online safety act comes into force, would the site owners be guilty of an offence ?
Postecoglou.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
https://x.com/chwissweed/status/1886703506595168561?s=61
https://x.com/polymarketintel/status/1886825916854043136?s=46
Zelensky: "We are open to the fact that minerals can be developed with our partners who help us protect our land and push the enemy back with their weapons, their presence, sanctions packages. And this is absolutely fair. I talked about this back in September, when we had a meeting with President Trump."
The dynamic being that Trump demands something or else, that something has already largely been agreed to in principle by the other country, and a great deal is seen to be done. Faces saved everywhere.
If Zelenskyy is smart then getting Trump excited about minerals, something we know he’s coveting in Greenland, could put US and Ukrainian interests in close alignment,
Stupefying. I hope it costs Keir his job, the fucking traitorous rat
We honestly should have just given the islands to the yanks if we don’t have the balls to rebut the silly Mauritian claim anymore.
https://twitterwrapped.exa.ai/msmithsonpb
There is also the question of Why the PR exercise? None of this makes any difference to the CCRC, still less the famously austere and sceptical Court of Appeal (Crim Div).
PR exercise and an incompletely issued report. I advise wait and see.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/delta-29bbf874a00d
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It's frankly ridiculous that a few mean words said can constitute a crime worthy of a trial at a county court.
Breaking: FBI employees have sued the Acting Attorney General James McHenry, accusing the Justice Department of violating the Constitution and privacy laws by demanding that agents complete a survey allegedly designed to “purge” bureau personnel who were involved in investigations related to President Donald Trump and the January 6 US Capitol attack.
Indeed Kemi has made the biggest net gains for the Conservatives with under 50s since Cameron if you believe Yougov, just lots of pensioners and late middle aged men have gone off in a huff to Nige
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/04/trump-jack-smith-special-counsel-prosecutors-firings
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war
2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Still a long way from winning a Scottish westminster seat, but there should be some very nervous Tory MSPs going into next years Holyrood vote. It looks like the drop in Slab has went to SNP, with a smaller chunk to Reform
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14357221/Angela-Rayner-lines-pro-Remain-ex-Tory-MP-head-new-body-advising-Islamophobia-critics-raise-free-speech-blasphemy-law-fears.html