Proud to wear the badge of never having been to a 'Spoons.
As a non-drinker, food is the reason I go to pubs. Winner of the overall Pub of the Year is one of our locals, the Cott Inn at Dartington. Been going since 1320...
I go to Spoons to drink their selection of non-alcoholic drinks. I like the atmosphere there.
Right now, ministers are receiving a tidal wave of paper on how bad an idea letting Thames Water go bankrupt is. Domestic and international repercussions. Etc etc.
“The sensible, but tough decision, minister, is to bale them out.”
There are no repercussions from letting a failed business go into administration.
That's why the system exists. It is the market working as intended.
Don't want to go into administration? Do a better job then!
Does that entirely work with utilities? After all in a genuine market the customer gets to choose the supplier. How does that work for water? I cannot switch from Wessex Water to someone else. And the market is regulated so that there is an upper limit on price.
Its different from say buying a TV or car or petrol or anything where you have genuine choice.
Yes it works with utilities.
The consumers may not have a choice, but the business operators have many of them.
One of the issues with nationalised water was that pollution was much, much, much worse than it is today. As much as polluted water is spoken about today, it is from a benchmark of very clean water versus what existed in the 80s.
Theoretically, even pre-privatisation, the water firms were fined for polluting but since the fines were paid by a nationalised firm it made no difference to anyone and the firms never bothered cleaning up their act.
In the 1990s when the firms were privatised, a way to increase profits was to reduce fines. Pollute less, leak less, run your firm better and there is a profitable incentive to do that.
Since the 1990s it seems Ofwat has fallen asleep at the wheel but there's no reason that needs to be the case, or that privatisation hasn't worked, it just means regulating properly and if the firms go bankrupt due to bad management then they lose out and new operators get called in who can do a better job.
Every politician knows the private sector is more efficient thanks to free market competition, but every economist knows that where there is a natural monopoly, there must be strict regulation because there is, by definition, no free market competition.
And you can get the inverse, where you have a publicly owned company that is constituted to work like an arms-length private company. That tends to work for bus services, which are vulnerable to both local politics and private "efficiencies".
There's a pub in this town where, so the reasonably well documented story goes, the High Sheriff of Essex hid during the Peasants Revolt. That was 1381.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Let it go bankrupt and burn the shareholders and boldholders.
Privatise the gains, privatise the losses.
TW is a good example of where administration should apply. Normally the underlying business needs cash. In this case, the underlying business is cash generative and pension obligations manageable. Can't think of a better example for Administration or Pre-pack.
The banks/bondholders need to put up or see their investment tank. The vampire kangaroo claims another victim.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
Nice use of ‘hand-picked’ rather than just, oh, I don't know, ‘picked’. It emphasises Starmer's clear intent in imposing this notorious malefactor on the judiciary.
And sorry to be l late to the carvery debate. I don't think I've had one. (Lunch) buffets in Asian hotels, meanwhile, are things of beauty and excess.
I thought carverys were a 70s thing. I have images of all-you-can eat types queueing up to pile plates high. Am I wrong?
You are not
Well carveries WERE a 70s thing - but one which has mysteriously persisted where other terrible things from the 70s (bouffant hairstyles, football hooliganism, Leo Sayer, Wheeltappers and Shunters Social Club, Watney's Red Barrel) have justifiably dwindled away in popularity.
I think Bart yesterday described them as 'middle of the road'. I disagree. In terms of pub food, someone like Thwaites pubs (I'm sure those nowhere near Lancashire can find local equivalents) provide middle-of-the-road food - moderately tasty but unexceptional pub staples at moderately tasty but unexceptional prices - fish and chips, steak and ale pie, scampi, etc. Carveries are the very bottom-of-the-road option - tasteless gag-inducing watery sludge, there only for the benefit of - as Bart alludes - those whose primary interest is neither to cook nor to wash up.
Let it go bankrupt and burn the shareholders and boldholders.
Privatise the gains, privatise the losses.
TW is a good example of where administration should apply. Normally the underlying business needs cash. In this case, the underlying business is cash generative and pension obligations manageable. Can't think of a better example for Administration or Pre-pack.
The banks/bondholders need to put up or see their investment tank. The vampire kangaroo claims another victim.
The problem with Thames Water is that you don’t want the administrators having a bidding war for the business
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
He's not offering a solution he's pointing out who our AG has chosen to represent, sometimes on a pro bono basis. By their choices shall you know them seems to be the suggestion.
The suggestion seems to be that Sir Keir is at fault for appointing someone who represented clients Jenrick doesn't personally approve of. Assuming this is a genuine complaint, I'm just curious about the guidance for future appointments so this doesn't happen again.
Interestingly Conservative voters are the most supportive not only of spending cuts but also higher taxes to fund defence
They are also the most supportive of making cuts in other areas of public spending to fund defence expenditure. Needless to say, no one asked them which areas should be cut - ending the Triple Lock perhaps?
Take the effing thing into public ownership, and drive the hardest possible bargain with debt holders by threatening receivership.
It would provide a salutary lesson for the rest of the industry - and might even end up bring a profitable deal for government.
Don't take it into public ownership before it goes into receivership, if you do that then taxpayers will be liable to the bondholders since we'll have taken on the obligations of ownership.
Let it go into administration and buy the assets at pennies on the pound if nobody else does after its gone into receivership.
Exactly. Have an OFWAT equivalent of the DfT's OLR - a management team ready to step in and operate the business once it fails. Thames Water's staff aren't affected, but senior management and the investors depart immediately.
This does not need any change in regulations or law, its already they law today that this is what happens if they go bust.
They're not too big to fail. If they fail, they fail, goodbye.
And taxpayers pick up the pieces as the Thames Water area is nationalised
There are no pieces to pickup - unless you think the government should recompense the shareholders/banks/bondholders. The TW business is sound and has a generous settlement from OFWAT.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
I'm interested in the "Gastropubs" conversation, and the term. Are self-dubbed gastropubs more corporate?
I've long enjoyed eating good food at good pubs, whether living down there in London for 6 or 7 years, or up here in Notts/Derbys. I'm not sure what the difference is, apart from a bit of pomposity or a 'famous' chef who likes looking in the mirror.
When I was in the Hardwick Inn on Saturday, having been walking on the Hardwick Estate Bastion Walk & landing on my butt because of a patch of mud that had no right to exist this far into a hot summer, a main course 'light bite' version (ie UK not US size) with a slice of one of their home made pies, a snack and a pint cost just around under £20. Their draught beers suitable for "half pint with a one hour meal" (i.e., ~4%) were Chatsworth Gold & Theakstons Best. They also had Taylors' Landlord and Old Peculiar on. For Ozzies, they also have kangaroo pee.
That's a nice food pub to me, but Google call it a Gastropub. Which is it? For me it's a good place to park because it saves me the 5 mile journey out and back through the Estate one way system, and the big hill is at the start of the walk not the end.
Also ideally situated for people wanting a break between M1J28 and M1J29, and has been in the same family foe 100 years or more. It's a beautifully placed site - just on the National Trust one way system exit, so 250k passing traffic a year are guaranteed, and for those in the know the food is better and less pricey pro-rate than the NT restaurant. You also get the free on foot entrance to the estate shops and so on, without breaching the inner pay perimeter.
Derbyshire has dozens of similar places, with their different styles, nearly everywhere.
Personally, I don't think a pub is a gastropub unless it's serving gastropods
Trying to think whether I've been to a Toby Carvery - I don't think I have, although I've been to similar places. Anywhere that relies on 'pile it high' doesn't tend to be the best food for obvious reasons - there's a trade off at a set price point between quality and wuantity. When I eat out, by choice*, I like to go somewhere that serves food at least as good as I can do at home and, often, things we don't tend to cook at home (because one or more family members dislike it - e.g. mussels).
*probably half or more of my eating out is for work trips, even then I prefer to go somewhere a bit interesting, if possible - i.e. I'll rarely eat in the hotel except for breakfast. Had three very nice dinners in Helsinki last week by following the advice of a local colleague - all visually unassuming small places down backstreets and away from the centre, but very good.
ETA: And roasts - they're best cooked from scratch to order, as the timings on everything are pretty crucial. It's no surprise that a halfway competent cook can do a better job at home than most pubs can do, serving tens of people
The latest season of Clarkson's Farm shows him trying to buy a pub. He found a perfect one and was refused permission for his plans because the local planning committee 'thought it might increase the number of visitors'
Let it go bankrupt and burn the shareholders and boldholders.
Privatise the gains, privatise the losses.
TW is a good example of where administration should apply. Normally the underlying business needs cash. In this case, the underlying business is cash generative and pension obligations manageable. Can't think of a better example for Administration or Pre-pack.
The banks/bondholders need to put up or see their investment tank. The vampire kangaroo claims another victim.
The problem with Thames Water is that you don’t want the administrators having a bidding war for the business
Why not?
The underlying business is profitable, no reason why there shouldn't be one.
Just regulate the new owners properly. Fine them if they do a bad job, and if they do a good one, they get to keep the profits.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
Trouble is, his and his Party's track record on that isn't very good. Look at some sod the Lords appointed under Johnson.
Take the effing thing into public ownership, and drive the hardest possible bargain with debt holders by threatening receivership.
It would provide a salutary lesson for the rest of the industry - and might even end up bring a profitable deal for government.
Don't take it into public ownership before it goes into receivership, if you do that then taxpayers will be liable to the bondholders since we'll have taken on the obligations of ownership.
Let it go into administration and buy the assets at pennies on the pound if nobody else does after its gone into receivership.
Exactly. Have an OFWAT equivalent of the DfT's OLR - a management team ready to step in and operate the business once it fails. Thames Water's staff aren't affected, but senior management and the investors depart immediately.
This does not need any change in regulations or law, its already they law today that this is what happens if they go bust.
They're not too big to fail. If they fail, they fail, goodbye.
And taxpayers pick up the pieces as the Thames Water area is nationalised
There are no pieces to pickup - unless you think the government should recompense the shareholders/banks/bondholders. The TW business is sound and has a generous settlement from OFWAT.
There is significant TW debt but yes the water supply in the South still needs to be operated whether nationalised or privatised
It'd be good if polls like this (what supporters of each party think about an issue) included the Greens. With this realignment of politics going on, the Greens are important - in their own right for votes and seats as a vehicle of left wing revolt against Starmer and as part of the LAB/LD/GRN block locked in a Prog v Trad battle with CON/REF.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Proud to wear the badge of never having been to a 'Spoons.
As a non-drinker, food is the reason I go to pubs. Winner of the overall Pub of the Year is one of our locals, the Cott Inn at Dartington. Been going since 1320...
Ah, the grand, fascinating and ultimately pointless debate over the age of pubs, and the 'oldest' pub...
Some of the inns/pubs Pepys visits are still there. The Chequers at Fowlmere is one.
Tha Maid's Head is in Norwich is mentioned in the 15th century Paston letters, and is still there.
A stones throw from the Maids (haunted, everywhere round Tombland is!) Is the Adam and Eve, earliest reference 13th century but the current building is C16/17 with later additions.
I lived in Norwich for 5 years and never even knew of the Maids - I did go to the Adam and Eve a lot
It's a hotel and event location now really rather than its former life, its not somewhere you go for a pint.
I've stayed in one called something Bear (I think in the South-West), which had 2 stuffed bears in the lounge. I've no particular memory except the bears, and that it was quite rural and light.
Take the effing thing into public ownership, and drive the hardest possible bargain with debt holders by threatening receivership.
It would provide a salutary lesson for the rest of the industry - and might even end up bring a profitable deal for government.
Don't take it into public ownership before it goes into receivership, if you do that then taxpayers will be liable to the bondholders since we'll have taken on the obligations of ownership.
Let it go into administration and buy the assets at pennies on the pound if nobody else does after its gone into receivership.
Exactly. Have an OFWAT equivalent of the DfT's OLR - a management team ready to step in and operate the business once it fails. Thames Water's staff aren't affected, but senior management and the investors depart immediately.
This does not need any change in regulations or law, its already they law today that this is what happens if they go bust.
They're not too big to fail. If they fail, they fail, goodbye.
And taxpayers pick up the pieces as the Thames Water area is nationalised
There are no pieces to pickup - unless you think the government should recompense the shareholders/banks/bondholders. The TW business is sound and has a generous settlement from OFWAT.
There is significant TW debt but yes the water supply in the South still needs to be operated whether nationalised or privatised
Starmer has to find the 3% and the public are against tax rises
Well here is an idea Starmer, grow a pair and refuse to revert the WFP and change the 2 child cap
The WFP political damage has already been done and labour cannot change the narrative by reinstating it
The country needs a strong conviction politician, not one that bends and sways when he thinks he may be unpopular
Yes Starmer, no use being the son of a toolmaker if your tools snap and break at every turn
Abolishing the two-child cap is essential if we are to generate sufficient numbers of squaddies.
I'm half serious. We need young people to fight these wars, and the average career length in the infantry is only 8 years, primarily due to injury.
Do parents really run their UC benefits through a spreadsheet before a night of unbridled passion? It seems unlikely.
What might be considered, if the goal is to encourage working parents, is the French system of income tax with family-pooled personal allowances – if your indolent three-year-old is not utilising his PA, mum or dad can add it to theirs.
(Arguably the old child allowance was a bit like this but changed because dad was not always handing the cash over to mum, in the old days when families ran that way.)
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Criticising lawyers for the cases they take on is one of the first steps towards authoritarianism. See Trumpism passim.
If Jenrick - who knows all this perfectly well - is starting down this track then he is a very dangerous man.
And all this at the same time as Farage and Reform are joining the welfare state social democrats.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
It shows that, like Trump, Jenrick has become a very dangerous man with dangerous ambitions. Attacking lawyers for the cases they take is exactly what the corrupt gangster oligarchy is doing in the USA before our eyes right now.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
Being lawyers who doesn't care about the law? I guess there are some but it does rather narrow the field.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
It shows that, like Trump, Jenrick has become a very dangerous man with dangerous ambitions. Attacking lawyers for the cases they take is exactly what the corrupt gangster oligarchy is doing in the USA before our eyes right now.
He took on those cases with the intention of building a particular kind of reputation. It's perfectly fair game to attack him for it.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
It shows that, like Trump, Jenrick has become a very dangerous man with dangerous ambitions. Attacking lawyers for the cases they take is exactly what the corrupt gangster oligarchy is doing in the USA before our eyes right now.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Take the effing thing into public ownership, and drive the hardest possible bargain with debt holders by threatening receivership.
It would provide a salutary lesson for the rest of the industry - and might even end up bring a profitable deal for government.
Don't take it into public ownership before it goes into receivership, if you do that then taxpayers will be liable to the bondholders since we'll have taken on the obligations of ownership.
Let it go into administration and buy the assets at pennies on the pound if nobody else does after its gone into receivership.
Exactly. Have an OFWAT equivalent of the DfT's OLR - a management team ready to step in and operate the business once it fails. Thames Water's staff aren't affected, but senior management and the investors depart immediately.
This does not need any change in regulations or law, its already they law today that this is what happens if they go bust.
They're not too big to fail. If they fail, they fail, goodbye.
And taxpayers pick up the pieces as the Thames Water area is nationalised
There are no pieces to pickup - unless you think the government should recompense the shareholders/banks/bondholders. The TW business is sound and has a generous settlement from OFWAT.
There is significant TW debt but yes the water supply in the South still needs to be operated whether nationalised or privatised
I don't know how to answer this as it appears company and financial structuring has gone over your head. If you want to explain further in case I have missed anything. I'm willing to learn.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
It shows that, like Trump, Jenrick has become a very dangerous man with dangerous ambitions. Attacking lawyers for the cases they take is exactly what the corrupt gangster oligarchy is doing in the USA before our eyes right now.
The Wizard of Ozempic is completely unmatched when it comes to getting media and BTL coverage. The tories are really fucking up by not having him as leader. Being LotO is all about getting attention without any of the advantages or resources of incumbency and he is the master.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
Starmer has to find the 3% and the public are against tax rises
Well here is an idea Starmer, grow a pair and refuse to revert the WFP and change the 2 child cap
The WFP political damage has already been done and labour cannot change the narrative by reinstating it
The country needs a strong conviction politician, not one that bends and sways when he thinks he may be unpopular
Yes Starmer, no use being the son of a toolmaker if your tools snap and break at every turn
Abolishing the two-child cap is essential if we are to generate sufficient numbers of squaddies.
I'm half serious. We need young people to fight these wars, and the average career length in the infantry is only 8 years, primarily due to injury.
Do parents really run their UC benefits through a spreadsheet before a night of unbridled passion? It seems unlikely.
What might be considered, if the goal is to encourage working parents, is the French system of income tax with family-pooled personal allowances – if your indolent three-year-old is not utilising his PA, mum or dad can add it to theirs.
(Arguably the old child allowance was a bit like this but changed because dad was not always handing the cash over to mum, in the old days when families ran that way.)
The latest season of Clarkson's Farm shows him trying to buy a pub. He found a perfect one and was refused permission for his plans because the local planning committee 'thought it might increase the number of visitors'
FFS
Yes but Clarkson is a special case. Knowing what he has done to the village in which he lives and farms, they foresaw an influx of people well in excess of what would normally be expected from a successful pub.
The latest season of Clarkson's Farm shows him trying to buy a pub. He found a perfect one and was refused permission for his plans because the local planning committee 'thought it might increase the number of visitors'
FFS
Yes but Clarkson is a special case. Knowing what he has done to the village in which he lives and farms, they foresaw an influx of people well in excess of what would normally be expected from a successful pub.
Take the effing thing into public ownership, and drive the hardest possible bargain with debt holders by threatening receivership.
It would provide a salutary lesson for the rest of the industry - and might even end up bring a profitable deal for government.
Don't take it into public ownership before it goes into receivership, if you do that then taxpayers will be liable to the bondholders since we'll have taken on the obligations of ownership.
Let it go into administration and buy the assets at pennies on the pound if nobody else does after its gone into receivership.
Exactly. Have an OFWAT equivalent of the DfT's OLR - a management team ready to step in and operate the business once it fails. Thames Water's staff aren't affected, but senior management and the investors depart immediately.
This does not need any change in regulations or law, its already they law today that this is what happens if they go bust.
They're not too big to fail. If they fail, they fail, goodbye.
And taxpayers pick up the pieces as the Thames Water area is nationalised
There are no pieces to pickup - unless you think the government should recompense the shareholders/banks/bondholders. The TW business is sound and has a generous settlement from OFWAT.
There is significant TW debt but yes the water supply in the South still needs to be operated whether nationalised or privatised
This is why it should be publicly owned.
TW had no debt when privatised but it borrowing too much added to it.
Of course it is still possible its lenders could raise the equity it needs too
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
It shows that, like Trump, Jenrick has become a very dangerous man with dangerous ambitions. Attacking lawyers for the cases they take is exactly what the corrupt gangster oligarchy is doing in the USA before our eyes right now.
So its not OK to criticise Rudy Guiliani?
Nobody is above criticism, certainly not lawyers.
Agreed, of course. Lawyers should be criticised for corruption, incompetence and dishonesty.
All I am saying is that lawyers as a profession take on cases of all sorts; and of course they specialise, and of course they go where the cases are and the money is. The merits of cases is decided by judges and juries, the law the lawyers seek to use is created by parliament and case law. No lawyer should be criticised simply for taking on particular cases.
It is a Trumpian tactic, currently being used in USA to promote a fearful and authoritarian state.
Russia planned operation Zeus' Lightning, largest-ever cruise missile attack on all of Ukraine for the night of June 1 to force Ukraine's hand at Istanbul the next day. Ukrainian drones destroyed many of these very bombers, already fuelled, hours before they were to take-off. https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1929721072682926339
Starmer has to find the 3% and the public are against tax rises
Well here is an idea Starmer, grow a pair and refuse to revert the WFP and change the 2 child cap
The WFP political damage has already been done and labour cannot change the narrative by reinstating it
The country needs a strong conviction politician, not one that bends and sways when he thinks he may be unpopular
Yes Starmer, no use being the son of a toolmaker if your tools snap and break at every turn
Abolishing the two-child cap is essential if we are to generate sufficient numbers of squaddies.
I'm half serious. We need young people to fight these wars, and the average career length in the infantry is only 8 years, primarily due to injury.
Do parents really run their UC benefits through a spreadsheet before a night of unbridled passion? It seems unlikely.
What might be considered, if the goal is to encourage working parents, is the French system of income tax with family-pooled personal allowances – if your indolent three-year-old is not utilising his PA, mum or dad can add it to theirs.
(Arguably the old child allowance was a bit like this but changed because dad was not always handing the cash over to mum, in the old days when families ran that way.)
No, of course not. But I'm pointing out that the kind of person who tends to be very worried about that effect also wants to expand the size of the army. That requires a society that facilitates raising children and supports young people.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
You need to tell that to Jenrick. He's the one trying to disqualify appointments made by our democratically elected PM.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
It shows that, like Trump, Jenrick has become a very dangerous man with dangerous ambitions. Attacking lawyers for the cases they take is exactly what the corrupt gangster oligarchy is doing in the USA before our eyes right now.
So its not OK to criticise Rudy Guiliani?
Nobody is above criticism, certainly not lawyers.
Agreed, of course. Lawyers should be criticised for corruption, incompetence and dishonesty.
All I am saying is that lawyers as a profession take on cases of all sorts; and of course they specialise, and of course they go where the cases are and the money is. The merits of cases is decided by judges and juries, the law the lawyers seek to use is created by parliament and case law. No lawyer should be criticised simply for taking on particular cases.
It is a Trumpian tactic, currently being used in USA to promote a fearful and authoritarian state.
It's not remotely Trumpian to criticise people for their choices. It's happened since time immemorial.
Cab rank is one thing, and it would be disingenuous to criticise that. But what people go out of their way to choose, especially if its systematically biased and pro bono ... that's fair game for critique if the individual then chooses to go into politics.
Very much the end of times it would seem. For the second time in as many days, I find myself agreeing with a @BartholomewRoberts post.
There's nothing wrong with Toby Carvery - yes, the snobs don't get it. It's not The Ivy and doesn't pretend to be but I've never had a duff meal in my local (Snaresbrook).
Some may feel a Yorkshire Pudding for breakfast is an idea ahead of its time and I have some sympathy with that view and when you go "large" you never fill your plate with extraneous Yorkies. Indeed, I have a friend who took up learning physics to see how much they could pile on their plate and the best way of usuing gravity to their advantage.
You can also quickly tell those who've played Tetris in their youth.
Saturdays are the best day becasue they have roast lamb - a little bit of reconnaissance required to see when a new joint appears and then up you go.
Yorkshire pudding for breakfast is ok. It’s basically oven baked pancake.
The principal critic of Toby on the previous thread was in fact Northern man of the people @Cookie, with sympathetic noises from hard right Toby-refusenik @Leon, but PB folklore will retell this as a snobbish assailing of classic British fare by the centrist dads and Lib Dems.
*drops gruff exterior momentarily* Ooh. "Northern man of the people". Made my day, that has.
I note that the first Toby was in Brentwood, Essex. Also that (and I had forgotten this already) Toby was responsible for destroying a 500-year old tree in North London a few months ago.
I'm also reminded that the chain itself is named after the concept of a Toby Jug - itself a 70s concept which has, justifiably, died out (I remember a bafflingly large selection of Toby Jugs available for sale in Debenhams in Stockport when I was small in the 'careful-not-to-knock-anything-over' section my mum would unaccountably bring me into far more often than necessary), and from there that Stewart Lee once described the One Show with Adrian Chiles - himself one of last night's themes - as 'like being trapped in the buffet car of an express train with a Toby jug which has somehow learned to speak". Which - despite the fact I'd far rather be trapped in the buffet car of an express train with Adrian Chiles (whom I suspect would be chummy and avuncular and would try to find some common ground for a chat while we awaited rescue) than Stewart Lee (who would be snide and belligerent) - I thought was quite funny.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
You need to tell that to Jenrick. He's the one trying to disqualify appointments made by our democratically elected PM.
No he isn’t, he’s shouting loudly that Hermer, and Starmer, don’t have put backs.
Russia planned operation Zeus' Lightning, largest-ever cruise missile attack on all of Ukraine for the night of June 1 to force Ukraine's hand at Istanbul the next day. Ukrainian drones destroyed many of these very bombers, already fuelled, hours before they were to take-off. https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1929721072682926339
Fake news. I know, because George Galloway told me it was a day that will live in infamy, and Ukraine should just surrender now.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
You need to tell that to Jenrick. He's the one trying to disqualify appointments made by our democratically elected PM.
I guess we'll have to wait to hear the arguments of the democratically elected PM to defend his position.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
It shows that, like Trump, Jenrick has become a very dangerous man with dangerous ambitions. Attacking lawyers for the cases they take is exactly what the corrupt gangster oligarchy is doing in the USA before our eyes right now.
The Wizard of Ozempic is completely unmatched when it comes to getting media and BTL coverage. The tories are really fucking up by not having him as leader. Being LotO is all about getting attention without any of the advantages or resources of incumbency and he is the master.
No, that is the role of LibDem leader, Sir Ed Davey, who is wetter than an otter's pocket after so many nautical stunts. The leader of the Conservatives is supposed also to provide what the pundits call a –narrative– what is modern Conservatism about? What is its philosophy? What is it for?
Although as Jenrick is said to want a merger with Reform, he might not be best placed to answer the question: what is the bloody point of the Tories?
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
The cab rank rule is in reality there to protect lawyers from ludicrous and sinister attacks from dangerous little Trumpians like Jenrick.
For any successful barrister (solicitor rules are different) they have to pick and choose as you can only be in one place at a time. They can refuse cases because the fee is not right, because they are otherwise engaged or it isn't in their fields of competence. Quite often the reason is that they have already been retained by the other side, especially in ultra obscure fields.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
True, but there's a risk that the more you hold him to account, the bigger his platform will become. The safer thing would be to ignore him.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
You need to tell that to Jenrick. He's the one trying to disqualify appointments made by our democratically elected PM.
How is he trying to disqualify him?
He's holding him to account and criticising him, that's the opposition's prerogative.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
It shows that, like Trump, Jenrick has become a very dangerous man with dangerous ambitions. Attacking lawyers for the cases they take is exactly what the corrupt gangster oligarchy is doing in the USA before our eyes right now.
So its not OK to criticise Rudy Guiliani?
Nobody is above criticism, certainly not lawyers.
Agreed, of course. Lawyers should be criticised for corruption, incompetence and dishonesty.
All I am saying is that lawyers as a profession take on cases of all sorts; and of course they specialise, and of course they go where the cases are and the money is. The merits of cases is decided by judges and juries, the law the lawyers seek to use is created by parliament and case law. No lawyer should be criticised simply for taking on particular cases.
It is a Trumpian tactic, currently being used in USA to promote a fearful and authoritarian state.
It's not remotely Trumpian to criticise people for their choices. It's happened since time immemorial.
Cab rank is one thing, and it would be disingenuous to criticise that. But what people go out of their way to choose, especially if its systematically biased and pro bono ... that's fair game for critique if the individual then chooses to go into politics.
It's absolutely fair to attack him for his politics - whatever they are, I have no idea - but not for taking cases in any particular legal field. As to pro bono - again I don't know the facts, but pro bono work happens in this world; some lawyers can afford to, some lawyers will do it to help establish a reputation, some will do it out of pure altruism.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
True, but there's a risk that the more you hold him to account, the bigger his platform will become. The safer thing would be to ignore him.
I do tend to. This was just a quick in-and-out on the matter. Parting comment: Jenrick is fast moving into 'overrated' territory. SKS will not be losing sleep over him.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
The cab rank rule is in reality there to protect lawyers from ludicrous and sinister attacks from dangerous little Trumpians like Jenrick.
For any successful barrister (solicitor rules are different) they have to pick and choose as you can only be in one place at a time. They can refuse cases because the fee is not right, because they are otherwise engaged or it isn't in their fields of competence. Quite often the reason is that they have already been retained by the other side, especially in ultra obscure fields.
It would help if there are examples of Hermer being on the other side. Would be unfortunate if in cases which he is an expert on, he always ends up on one side.
The latest season of Clarkson's Farm shows him trying to buy a pub. He found a perfect one and was refused permission for his plans because the local planning committee 'thought it might increase the number of visitors'
FFS
1) Its West Oxfordshire Council who he has had massive runs in with repeatedly. And been caught bending the runs e.g. I want planning permission for a lambing shed, ok, less than 12 months later, erhh not doing lambing, I am having a cafe in it because planning regs now let me change the usage.
2) Jezza has been found in the past not being 100% truthful about the council decisions for comedic effect.
That all been said, the council still seem like absolute twats. Tall poppy syndrome, how dare anybody actually make things work because they are very good at PR and marketing.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
It shows that, like Trump, Jenrick has become a very dangerous man with dangerous ambitions. Attacking lawyers for the cases they take is exactly what the corrupt gangster oligarchy is doing in the USA before our eyes right now.
So its not OK to criticise Rudy Guiliani?
Nobody is above criticism, certainly not lawyers.
Agreed, of course. Lawyers should be criticised for corruption, incompetence and dishonesty.
All I am saying is that lawyers as a profession take on cases of all sorts; and of course they specialise, and of course they go where the cases are and the money is. The merits of cases is decided by judges and juries, the law the lawyers seek to use is created by parliament and case law. No lawyer should be criticised simply for taking on particular cases.
It is a Trumpian tactic, currently being used in USA to promote a fearful and authoritarian state.
It's not remotely Trumpian to criticise people for their choices. It's happened since time immemorial.
Cab rank is one thing, and it would be disingenuous to criticise that. But what people go out of their way to choose, especially if its systematically biased and pro bono ... that's fair game for critique if the individual then chooses to go into politics.
It's absolutely fair to attack him for his politics - whatever they are, I have no idea - but not for taking cases in any particular legal field. As to pro bono - again I don't know the facts, but pro bono work happens in this world; some lawyers can afford to, some lawyers will do it to help establish a reputation, some will do it out of pure altruism.
If you choose to take cases with a political slant then that's absolutely fair game to criticise in politics.
If you don't want to face scrutiny, don't go into politics.
They would at present clearly do better with PR but on that poll but still Farage could not get a clear majority without Kemi's support on that polling and Starmer would have no chance of staying PM without Kemi's support either
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
You need to tell that to Jenrick. He's the one trying to disqualify appointments made by our democratically elected PM.
How is he trying to disqualify him?
He's holding him to account and criticising him, that's the opposition's prerogative.
Unless I'm misconstruing, Jenrick's suggestion is that Sir Keir - unbelievably - has appointed an enemy of the nation to a powerful job and it was a decision that was completely, utterly and incontrovertibly without justification. That's hardly a ringing endorsement. But let's not get bogged down with that. What I want to know is how do we improve the process to ensure such a blunder never occurs again?
And yet still nowhere near as much as the Chagos Island deal.....
Given how much money was being spent every day on COVID related things, I am actually surprised they haven't announced a much much higher figure.
And at least it was with the aim of achieving something for British people - rather than with the aim of achieving something for Mauritian people and/or China.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
True, but there's a risk that the more you hold him to account, the bigger his platform will become. The safer thing would be to ignore him.
I do tend to. This was just a quick in-and-out on the matter. Parting comment: Jenrick is fast moving into 'overrated' territory. SKS will not be losing sleep over him.
Agreed, as Starmer sleepless nights are caused by Farage getting into his head
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
It shows that, like Trump, Jenrick has become a very dangerous man with dangerous ambitions. Attacking lawyers for the cases they take is exactly what the corrupt gangster oligarchy is doing in the USA before our eyes right now.
So its not OK to criticise Rudy Guiliani?
Nobody is above criticism, certainly not lawyers.
Agreed, of course. Lawyers should be criticised for corruption, incompetence and dishonesty.
All I am saying is that lawyers as a profession take on cases of all sorts; and of course they specialise, and of course they go where the cases are and the money is. The merits of cases is decided by judges and juries, the law the lawyers seek to use is created by parliament and case law. No lawyer should be criticised simply for taking on particular cases.
It is a Trumpian tactic, currently being used in USA to promote a fearful and authoritarian state.
It's not remotely Trumpian to criticise people for their choices. It's happened since time immemorial.
Cab rank is one thing, and it would be disingenuous to criticise that. But what people go out of their way to choose, especially if its systematically biased and pro bono ... that's fair game for critique if the individual then chooses to go into politics.
It's absolutely fair to attack him for his politics - whatever they are, I have no idea - but not for taking cases in any particular legal field. As to pro bono - again I don't know the facts, but pro bono work happens in this world; some lawyers can afford to, some lawyers will do it to help establish a reputation, some will do it out of pure altruism.
If you choose to take cases with a political slant then that's absolutely fair game to criticise in politics.
If you don't want to face scrutiny, don't go into politics.
All this defending of Human Rights lawyers as though they are altruistic do gooders grates horribly. They are paid megabucks and their specialist subject appears to stop politicians from doing what the majority of the country wants, using some absurd technicality or other.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
You need to tell that to Jenrick. He's the one trying to disqualify appointments made by our democratically elected PM.
How is he trying to disqualify him?
He's holding him to account and criticising him, that's the opposition's prerogative.
Unless I'm misconstruing, Jenrick's suggestion is that Sir Keir - unbelievably - has appointed an enemy of the nation to a powerful job and it was a decision that was completely, utterly and incontrovertibly without justification. That's hardly a ringing endorsement. But let's not get bogged down with that. What I want to know is how do we improve the process to ensure such a blunder never occurs again?
You don't.
You have a political debate and if Starmer wants to defend his actions, he can do. If he wants to ignore it, he can do.
If the public agree with Jenrick and decide to turf out Starmer at the next election, they can do.
Democracy beats process.
The idea anyone should be above scrutiny is utterly absurd and goes against a free, democratic society with free speech.
If Jolyon Maugham went into politics should his rather interesting case history be verboten from being scrutinised?
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
True, but there's a risk that the more you hold him to account, the bigger his platform will become. The safer thing would be to ignore him.
I do tend to. This was just a quick in-and-out on the matter. Parting comment: Jenrick is fast moving into 'overrated' territory. SKS will not be losing sleep over him.
Agreed, as Starmer sleepless nights are caused by Farage getting into his head
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
You need to tell that to Jenrick. He's the one trying to disqualify appointments made by our democratically elected PM.
How is he trying to disqualify him?
He's holding him to account and criticising him, that's the opposition's prerogative.
Unless I'm misconstruing, Jenrick's suggestion is that Sir Keir - unbelievably - has appointed an enemy of the nation to a powerful job and it was a decision that was completely, utterly and incontrovertibly without justification. That's hardly a ringing endorsement. But let's not get bogged down with that. What I want to know is how do we improve the process to ensure such a blunder never occurs again?
The UNS seat calculators are pretty much useless for the current environment. What happens to the vote efficiency of the LDs, Tories and Labour will be a deciding factor on the shape of things. The very specific tactical vote to end 14 years of Tory rule will have to some extent dissipated too, how much will be vital
The latest season of Clarkson's Farm shows him trying to buy a pub. He found a perfect one and was refused permission for his plans because the local planning committee 'thought it might increase the number of visitors'
FFS
1) Its West Oxfordshire Council who he has had massive runs in with repeatedly. And been caught bending the runs e.g. I want planning permission for a lambing shed, ok, less than 12 months later, erhh not doing lambing, I am having a cafe in it because planning regs now let me change the usage.
2) Jezza has been found in the past not being 100% truthful about the council decisions for comedic effect.
That all been said, the council still seem like absolute twats. Tall poppy syndrome, how dare anybody actually make things work because they are very good at PR and marketing.
Problem with that is that the pub has been allowed an absolutely massive tent to cope with demand - and the planning applications for the pub seem to be being processed quickly with a lot of free will from the council.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
The cab rank rule is in reality there to protect lawyers from ludicrous and sinister attacks from dangerous little Trumpians like Jenrick.
For any successful barrister (solicitor rules are different) they have to pick and choose as you can only be in one place at a time. They can refuse cases because the fee is not right, because they are otherwise engaged or it isn't in their fields of competence. Quite often the reason is that they have already been retained by the other side, especially in ultra obscure fields.
It would help if there are examples of Hermer being on the other side. Would be unfortunate if in cases which he is an expert on, he always ends up on one side.
As to the facts I have no idea. What you can't do is tout for trade. You can only represent where you are asked.
In another field, crime, there are substantial number of barristers who almost always prosecute, and ditto lots almost always defend. That can just be the way careers develop.
It is possible, again I don't know, that many of the cases Hermer is being attacked about were cases against the government of the day. Government legal services pick and choose who they use just like evryone else.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
You need to tell that to Jenrick. He's the one trying to disqualify appointments made by our democratically elected PM.
How is he trying to disqualify him?
He's holding him to account and criticising him, that's the opposition's prerogative.
Unless I'm misconstruing, Jenrick's suggestion is that Sir Keir - unbelievably - has appointed an enemy of the nation to a powerful job and it was a decision that was completely, utterly and incontrovertibly without justification. That's hardly a ringing endorsement. But let's not get bogged down with that. What I want to know is how do we improve the process to ensure such a blunder never occurs again?
You don't.
You have a political debate and if Starmer wants to defend his actions, he can do. If he wants to ignore it, he can do.
If the public agree with Jenrick and decide to turf out Starmer at the next election, they can do.
Democracy beats process.
The idea anyone should be above scrutiny is utterly absurd and goes against a free, democratic society with free speech.
If Jolyon Maugham went into politics should his rather interesting case history be verboten from being scrutinised?
I think we would all be too busy laughing at how he never wins....
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
The latest season of Clarkson's Farm shows him trying to buy a pub. He found a perfect one and was refused permission for his plans because the local planning committee 'thought it might increase the number of visitors'
FFS
1) Its West Oxfordshire Council who he has had massive runs in with repeatedly. And been caught bending the runs e.g. I want planning permission for a lambing shed, ok, less than 12 months later, erhh not doing lambing, I am having a cafe in it because planning regs now let me change the usage.
2) Jezza has been found in the past not being 100% truthful about the council decisions for comedic effect.
That all been said, the council still seem like absolute twats. Tall poppy syndrome, how dare anybody actually make things work because they are very good at PR and marketing.
Problem with that is that the pub has been allowed an absolutely massive tent to cope with demand - and the planning applications for the pub seem to be being processed quickly with a lot of free will from the council.
I think in reality there is love / hate relationship going on. They hate Clarkson, but love all that extra revenue.
Sleazy, broken Reform, Tories and Greens on the slide!
Hmm. Too early to claim peak Reform yet, but I do wonder if Nigel's lurch to the left was a risk too far. We might soon be getting into the territory of 'Why bother with Reform when we can vote Labour and get the real thing'.
Comments
The banks/bondholders need to put up or see their investment tank. The vampire kangaroo claims another victim.
I think Bart yesterday described them as 'middle of the road'. I disagree. In terms of pub food, someone like Thwaites pubs (I'm sure those nowhere near Lancashire can find local equivalents) provide middle-of-the-road food - moderately tasty but unexceptional pub staples at moderately tasty but unexceptional prices - fish and chips, steak and ale pie, scampi, etc. Carveries are the very bottom-of-the-road option - tasteless gag-inducing watery sludge, there only for the benefit of - as Bart alludes - those whose primary interest is neither to cook nor to wash up.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thomassean/p/how-i-invented-a-beloved-english?r=4a6bw9&utm_medium=ios
Trying to think whether I've been to a Toby Carvery - I don't think I have, although I've been to similar places. Anywhere that relies on 'pile it high' doesn't tend to be the best food for obvious reasons - there's a trade off at a set price point between quality and wuantity. When I eat out, by choice*, I like to go somewhere that serves food at least as good as I can do at home and, often, things we don't tend to cook at home (because one or more family members dislike it - e.g. mussels).
*probably half or more of my eating out is for work trips, even then I prefer to go somewhere a bit interesting, if possible - i.e. I'll rarely eat in the hotel except for breakfast. Had three very nice dinners in Helsinki last week by following the advice of a local colleague - all visually unassuming small places down backstreets and away from the centre, but very good.
ETA: And roasts - they're best cooked from scratch to order, as the timings on everything are pretty crucial. It's no surprise that a halfway competent cook can do a better job at home than most pubs can do, serving tens of people
FFS
The underlying business is profitable, no reason why there shouldn't be one.
Just regulate the new owners properly. Fine them if they do a bad job, and if they do a good one, they get to keep the profits.
What might be considered, if the goal is to encourage working parents, is the French system of income tax with family-pooled personal allowances – if your indolent three-year-old is not utilising his PA, mum or dad can add it to theirs.
(Arguably the old child allowance was a bit like this but changed because dad was not always handing the cash over to mum, in the old days when families ran that way.)
If Jenrick - who knows all this perfectly well - is starting down this track then he is a very dangerous man.
And all this at the same time as Farage and Reform are joining the welfare state social democrats.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-phrase-wetter-than-an-otters-pocket-originate
(It's a whirlpool, near Jura. George Orwell very near drowned there when his boat got into difficulties. Just imagine - no "1984")
Nobody is above criticism, certainly not lawyers.
Jenrick is a qualified solicitor, so should know the Inns (sorry) and outs.
Did Helmer deliberately choose these clients, or was it cab rank? Did he have an option to refuse to represent them?
(I don't know the answer.)
"@YouGov
Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (1-2 June)
Ref: 28% (-1 from 26-27 May)
Lab: 22% (+1)
Con: 18% (-1)
Lib Dem: 17% (+2)
Green: 9% (-2)
SNP: 3% (+1)"
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1929832928789369231
Of course it is still possible its lenders could raise the equity it needs too
All I am saying is that lawyers as a profession take on cases of all sorts; and of course they specialise, and of course they go where the cases are and the money is. The merits of cases is decided by judges and juries, the law the lawyers seek to use is created by parliament and case law. No lawyer should be criticised simply for taking on particular cases.
It is a Trumpian tactic, currently being used in USA to promote a fearful and authoritarian state.
Those numbers give Reform 323 MPs so they would still need Tory confidence and supply for a working majority
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=18&LAB=22&LIB=17&Reform=28&Green=9&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
Ukrainian drones destroyed many of these very bombers, already fuelled, hours before they were to take-off.
https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1929721072682926339
Cab rank is one thing, and it would be disingenuous to criticise that. But what people go out of their way to choose, especially if its systematically biased and pro bono ... that's fair game for critique if the individual then chooses to go into politics.
Ooh. "Northern man of the people". Made my day, that has.
*readopts gruff(ish) exterior*
Just had a glance at this for any insight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Carvery
I note that the first Toby was in Brentwood, Essex. Also that (and I had forgotten this already) Toby was responsible for destroying a 500-year old tree in North London a few months ago.
I'm also reminded that the chain itself is named after the concept of a Toby Jug - itself a 70s concept which has, justifiably, died out (I remember a bafflingly large selection of Toby Jugs available for sale in Debenhams in Stockport when I was small in the 'careful-not-to-knock-anything-over' section my mum would unaccountably bring me into far more often than necessary), and from there that Stewart Lee once described the One Show with Adrian Chiles - himself one of last night's themes - as 'like being trapped in the buffet car of an express train with a Toby jug which has somehow learned to speak". Which - despite the fact I'd far rather be trapped in the buffet car of an express train with Adrian Chiles (whom I suspect would be chummy and avuncular and would try to find some common ground for a chat while we awaited rescue) than Stewart Lee (who would be snide and belligerent) - I thought was quite funny.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/whats-on/tv/stewart-lee-is-a-condescending-snob-239194
Although as Jenrick is said to want a merger with Reform, he might not be best placed to answer the question: what is the bloody point of the Tories?
For any successful barrister (solicitor rules are different) they have to pick and choose as you can only be in one place at a time. They can refuse cases because the fee is not right, because they are otherwise engaged or it isn't in their fields of competence. Quite often the reason is that they have already been retained by the other side, especially in ultra obscure fields.
He's holding him to account and criticising him, that's the opposition's prerogative.
2) Jezza has been found in the past not being 100% truthful about the council decisions for comedic effect.
That all been said, the council still seem like absolute twats. Tall poppy syndrome, how dare anybody actually make things work because they are very good at PR and marketing.
If you don't want to face scrutiny, don't go into politics.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/failed-covid-contracts-cost-british-taxpayer-14-billion
Treasury press release.
Given how much money was being spent every day on COVID related things, I am actually surprised they haven't announced a much much higher figure.
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
You have a political debate and if Starmer wants to defend his actions, he can do. If he wants to ignore it, he can do.
If the public agree with Jenrick and decide to turf out Starmer at the next election, they can do.
Democracy beats process.
The idea anyone should be above scrutiny is utterly absurd and goes against a free, democratic society with free speech.
If Jolyon Maugham went into politics should his rather interesting case history be verboten from being scrutinised?
In another field, crime, there are substantial number of barristers who almost always prosecute, and ditto lots almost always defend. That can just be the way careers develop.
It is possible, again I don't know, that many of the cases Hermer is being attacked about were cases against the government of the day. Government legal services pick and choose who they use just like evryone else.