Already some comment from journos that Starmer might have misled parliament today, at least will likely need to 'correct the record' All so he could try and 'win' PMQs.
There is a danger that Labour are becoming far too wed on last-government-itis. A lot of this does seem to hinge on them trying to make the Tories take the fall, when it appears to be a bit of a grey area.
I hardly exonerate the Tories here - their track record shows a frightening lack of competence across all sorts of topics - but you do get the feeling that by trying to pin all this on the last government this government is starting to tie itself in knots.
The Labour line on this doesn't pass the smell test. If the Tories were to blame for the collapse of the case, then it would have happened last year and not now.
The reality is that the Labour Government wants closer relations with China and therefore the case was an embarrassment that needed to go away. But they can't admit that, so hence why we are where we are.
What I don't understand - and none of the reporting has made this very clear - is that the alleged criminal offence happened under the last government. Whatever way the current government defines our relationship with China ought to be irrelevant to whether or not acting for China at the time amounted to espionage (or whatever the precise charge was).
Can anyone explain this to me ?
Cleverly's "clarification" of the previous government's stance is even more baffling.
..As we just reported, at the end of PMQs, the Speaker granted Tory shadow housing secretary James Cleverly an intervention to clarify what he had said in a speech about China. Standing at the dispatch box, Cleverly says he was misquoted by the prime minister. He says describing China in “one word” was impossible, impractical and unwise. Here's the section of the 2023 speech he's referring to: “I’m often asked to express that policy in a single phrase, or to sum up China itself in one word, whether ‘threat’, or ‘partner’, or ‘adversary’. And I want to start by explaining why that is impossible, impractical and – most importantly – unwise.”
Starmer has said he'll publish the documents relating to the case. Which might - or might not - make things a little clearer ?
It's the meeting Powell had that the Times exposed and now Starmer admits took place is where his problem lies if Powell was involved, as Starmer and Powell would both have to resign due to their denials
The minutes of that meeting are being demanded and so far resisted which you have to ask - Why ?
Beta = lower status male, as opposed to alpha; wimpy, uses oat milk and eats vegan scones at NT cafes as opposed to raw steaks Cuck = cuckoo = allusion to the beta status male's wife being rogered by alpha males, I believe, with ensuing illegitimate offspring (yes, yes, I know, but those of a certain tendency probably don't spend their weekends birdwatching, or at least watching the feathered variety)
It's a very nasty insult when used in person.
Ouch. That’s quite comprehensive.
So presumably swingers who go to dogging sites.
Self-image vs actuality for Pete Hegseth?
(Amusingly, on his "no fatties in the military" speech, they withdrew some Texas National Guard from their invasion of Chicago after some on social media published photos of the cowboy chunkers.
Hegseth isn’t wrong, the old movie stereotype of the cops sitting in their car outside the donut shop does appear to have spread to certain areas of the military.
Those TX National Guard aren’t going to be chasing anyone, isn’t military service supposed to be about discipline and readiness? That bunch of fatties clearly isn’t passing any fitness test.
Here's one of the young MAGA crowd in the Politico story.
That's the advantage of being a MAGA and the world of alternative truths. In his mind he is most definitely the alpha.
The last thing that you can still be rude about - weight. I see a lad who has taken care of his appearance - hair is well cut and under control, he's clean shaven and wearing a nice suit that fits his, admittedly somewhat large, frame.
I'm not sure that's true actually. People are extremely touchy about weight and it's absolutely not acceptable to bring it up in the workplace or as a term of abuse.
That's a big part of the problem with weight - normalisation. It's an exceptionally serious problem that is hushed up - consider all the "no underlying health conditions" stories we saw during COVID and it turned out the patient was obese and their body was already under huge strain.
They might not do it in person but just now on PB people are laughing at this chap because if his weight. They wouldn't about his ethnicity or sex or height. (Actually if he was short some probably would, and that's even less fair).
Those aren't things you can change*. In 99% of cases your weight reflects your behaviour and comparing it to something like height or ethnicity is crass.
*I know, I know.
He doesn't look that old. Mostly fat children are down to their parents. And actually weight is not a simple issue. It certainly isn't as simple as just reflecting behaviour. Environment is important too. As are genetics. I used to run 3 x weekly, 5 or more miles. I was never slim. My body type does not do that. My sister is hugely active - runs and walks most days. She's also not slim.
My wife is never overweight whether she is running a lot (as now) or not (as sometimes happens).
That betrays the usual mistake that people make - that exercise is the way to reduce weight. It takes a significant amount of running/cycling/swimming to burn off a single slice of cake. It's all about diet. 200-300 calories in a pint of beer etc etc.
Anyway, whenever you bring this up you just get a host of excuses and whataboutery with people unable to take personal responsibility. That's why it will take a significant government intervention to solve.
And calories is also a poor measure. Multiple studies suggest that if you consume more calories than 'required' you will gain weight but nothing like the amount expected. And the reverse is also true. A low calorie diet does not mean you will keep losing weight.
The food industry is a lot to blame. Convenience food, heavily processed food (a good guide is any ingredients that you wouldn't use in your kitchen such as calcium carbonate, emulsifiers etc) are the root of all evil. If we only ate meat, veg and fruit we would most likely all be healthy.
Exactly - it's a choice. Those things are available in supermarkets.
So, either we ask people to stop eating crap (won't work) or tax/regulate that stuff into oblivion.
Or restrict NHS care to people with a healthy weight.
And then ban those who do dangerous hobbies from A and E (climbing, abseiling, mountain biking etc)?
Another classic. You'll find someone who eats well and keeps active will have a significantly reduced impact on the NHS over someone who is sedentary and overweight over the course iof their life, even accounting for the odd broken collarbone.
This attitude to keeping healthy is so ingrained in UK culture that it's very difficult to see a sustainable path for the NHS. People like me will start to refuse to pay the tax that supports such an attitude.
So you want the NHS to treat only healthy people? Is that right?
No, you haven't got that right.
I know what you are saying - you think that only people who look after their health deserve healthcare. I think thats rather extreme. We can all look at someone who smokes, drinks too much, takes not exercise and eats a rubbish diet and be annoyed that they might need more healthcare. But they pay taxes too. I would love it if no one was overweight, all took regular exercise and ate a healthy diet. It would be far better for the nation and people would probably be a lot happier too. But we don't live in that world. You come dangerously close to suggesting someone overweight should not get healthcare.
@CAForever submitted detailed plans for the next great American city, an hour north of Silicon Valley, including: Solano Foundry, America’s largest manufacturing park, Solano Shipyard, our largest shipyard, and walkable neighborhoods for 400,000 Californians. https://x.com/jansramek/status/1978161081928572975
This will require a ballot initiative to go ahead, and that's fairly likely to happen next year. A NIMBY vs YIMBY California ballot initiative during the midterms would be interesting.
No one cares about the China spy case . And most realize that with Trump in the WH we need to suck up to China.
If the government sabotaged the case then I’m afraid that’s the reality of where we are .
Yeah, China is our mate because of Trump
😂
Neither are our mates.
And both relationships need to be managed, which involves a mix of working with them, criticising them and being hypocritical at times. It is a tricky narrow path where we should give our politicians a bit of leeway to navigate.
Already some comment from journos that Starmer might have misled parliament today, at least will likely need to 'correct the record' All so he could try and 'win' PMQs.
There is a danger that Labour are becoming far too wed on last-government-itis. A lot of this does seem to hinge on them trying to make the Tories take the fall, when it appears to be a bit of a grey area.
I hardly exonerate the Tories here - their track record shows a frightening lack of competence across all sorts of topics - but you do get the feeling that by trying to pin all this on the last government this government is starting to tie itself in knots.
The Labour line on this doesn't pass the smell test. If the Tories were to blame for the collapse of the case, then it would have happened last year and not now.
The reality is that the Labour Government wants closer relations with China and therefore the case was an embarrassment that needed to go away. But they can't admit that, so hence why we are where we are.
What I don't understand - and none of the reporting has made this very clear - is that the alleged criminal offence happened under the last government. Whatever way the current government defines our relationship with China ought to be irrelevant to whether or not acting for China at the time amounted to espionage (or whatever the precise charge was).
Can anyone explain this to me ?
Cleverly's "clarification" of the previous government's stance is even more baffling.
..As we just reported, at the end of PMQs, the Speaker granted Tory shadow housing secretary James Cleverly an intervention to clarify what he had said in a speech about China. Standing at the dispatch box, Cleverly says he was misquoted by the prime minister. He says describing China in “one word” was impossible, impractical and unwise. Here's the section of the 2023 speech he's referring to: “I’m often asked to express that policy in a single phrase, or to sum up China itself in one word, whether ‘threat’, or ‘partner’, or ‘adversary’. And I want to start by explaining why that is impossible, impractical and – most importantly – unwise.”
Starmer has said he'll publish the documents relating to the case. Which might - or might not - make things a little clearer ?
It's the meeting Powell had that the Times exposed and now Starmer admits took place is where his problem lies if Powell was involved as Starmer and Powell was would both have to resign due to the denials
The minutes of that meeting are being demanded and so far resisted which you have to ask - Why ?
No one cares about the China spy case . And most realize that with Trump in the WH we need to suck up to China.
If the government sabotaged the case then I’m afraid that’s the reality of where we are .
Yeah, China is our mate because of Trump
😂
Neither are our mates.
And both relationships need to be managed, which involves a mix of working with them, criticising them and being hypocritical at times. It is a tricky narrow path where we should give our politicians a bit of leeway to navigate.
With the proviso that our relationships with the two countries are very different indeed, I agree entirely with that.
No one cares about the China spy case . And most realize that with Trump in the WH we need to suck up to China.
If the government sabotaged the case then I’m afraid that’s the reality of where we are .
A lot of people and mps do care about the China case and frankly this controversy plus the London Chinese Embassy has made it near impossible for Starmer to do a trade deal
Furthermore , you do know the Speaker is furious about this controversy and the safety of mps
I don’t care and the papers are flogging a dead horse .
You are in denial
It matters to the security of our nation and our mps
Starmer only needs to publish the secret meeting minutes that he now admits Powell attended
Already some comment from journos that Starmer might have misled parliament today, at least will likely need to 'correct the record' All so he could try and 'win' PMQs.
There is a danger that Labour are becoming far too wed on last-government-itis. A lot of this does seem to hinge on them trying to make the Tories take the fall, when it appears to be a bit of a grey area.
I hardly exonerate the Tories here - their track record shows a frightening lack of competence across all sorts of topics - but you do get the feeling that by trying to pin all this on the last government this government is starting to tie itself in knots.
The Labour line on this doesn't pass the smell test. If the Tories were to blame for the collapse of the case, then it would have happened last year and not now.
The reality is that the Labour Government wants closer relations with China and therefore the case was an embarrassment that needed to go away. But they can't admit that, so hence why we are where we are.
What I don't understand - and none of the reporting has made this very clear - is that the alleged criminal offence happened under the last government. Whatever way the current government defines our relationship with China ought to be irrelevant to whether or not acting for China at the time amounted to espionage (or whatever the precise charge was).
Can anyone explain this to me ?
Cleverly's "clarification" of the previous government's stance is even more baffling.
..As we just reported, at the end of PMQs, the Speaker granted Tory shadow housing secretary James Cleverly an intervention to clarify what he had said in a speech about China. Standing at the dispatch box, Cleverly says he was misquoted by the prime minister. He says describing China in “one word” was impossible, impractical and unwise. Here's the section of the 2023 speech he's referring to: “I’m often asked to express that policy in a single phrase, or to sum up China itself in one word, whether ‘threat’, or ‘partner’, or ‘adversary’. And I want to start by explaining why that is impossible, impractical and – most importantly – unwise.”
Starmer has said he'll publish the documents relating to the case. Which might - or might not - make things a little clearer ?
It's the meeting Powell had that the Times exposed and now Starmer admits took place is where his problem lies if Powell was involved, as Starmer and Powell would both have to resign due to their denials
The minutes of that meeting are being demanded and so far resisted which you have to ask - Why ?
This seems odd because much of this was announced in his update at PMQs before Kemi even asked any questions. An entirely unforced error, which was compounded by Kemi's killer question about whether she was to seriously believe that the case had not come up at the meeting and that none of the senior people had discussed it.
It's currently an unexploded bomb, it might go right off. I did google the clip of Kemi trying to explain away China's behaviour when she was business secretary, and it does look quite weak. Obviously trying to not make an enemy of China whilst trying to negotiate with them.
Beta = lower status male, as opposed to alpha; wimpy, uses oat milk and eats vegan scones at NT cafes as opposed to raw steaks Cuck = cuckoo = allusion to the beta status male's wife being rogered by alpha males, I believe, with ensuing illegitimate offspring (yes, yes, I know, but those of a certain tendency probably don't spend their weekends birdwatching, or at least watching the feathered variety)
It's a very nasty insult when used in person.
Ouch. That’s quite comprehensive.
So presumably swingers who go to dogging sites.
Self-image vs actuality for Pete Hegseth?
(Amusingly, on his "no fatties in the military" speech, they withdrew some Texas National Guard from their invasion of Chicago after some on social media published photos of the cowboy chunkers.
Hegseth isn’t wrong, the old movie stereotype of the cops sitting in their car outside the donut shop does appear to have spread to certain areas of the military.
Those TX National Guard aren’t going to be chasing anyone, isn’t military service supposed to be about discipline and readiness? That bunch of fatties clearly isn’t passing any fitness test.
Here's one of the young MAGA crowd in the Politico story.
That's the advantage of being a MAGA and the world of alternative truths. In his mind he is most definitely the alpha.
The last thing that you can still be rude about - weight. I see a lad who has taken care of his appearance - hair is well cut and under control, he's clean shaven and wearing a nice suit that fits his, admittedly somewhat large, frame.
I'm not sure that's true actually. People are extremely touchy about weight and it's absolutely not acceptable to bring it up in the workplace or as a term of abuse.
That's a big part of the problem with weight - normalisation. It's an exceptionally serious problem that is hushed up - consider all the "no underlying health conditions" stories we saw during COVID and it turned out the patient was obese and their body was already under huge strain.
They might not do it in person but just now on PB people are laughing at this chap because if his weight. They wouldn't about his ethnicity or sex or height. (Actually if he was short some probably would, and that's even less fair).
Those aren't things you can change*. In 99% of cases your weight reflects your behaviour and comparing it to something like height or ethnicity is crass.
*I know, I know.
He doesn't look that old. Mostly fat children are down to their parents. And actually weight is not a simple issue. It certainly isn't as simple as just reflecting behaviour. Environment is important too. As are genetics. I used to run 3 x weekly, 5 or more miles. I was never slim. My body type does not do that. My sister is hugely active - runs and walks most days. She's also not slim.
My wife is never overweight whether she is running a lot (as now) or not (as sometimes happens).
That betrays the usual mistake that people make - that exercise is the way to reduce weight. It takes a significant amount of running/cycling/swimming to burn off a single slice of cake. It's all about diet. 200-300 calories in a pint of beer etc etc.
Anyway, whenever you bring this up you just get a host of excuses and whataboutery with people unable to take personal responsibility. That's why it will take a significant government intervention to solve.
And calories is also a poor measure. Multiple studies suggest that if you consume more calories than 'required' you will gain weight but nothing like the amount expected. And the reverse is also true. A low calorie diet does not mean you will keep losing weight.
The food industry is a lot to blame. Convenience food, heavily processed food (a good guide is any ingredients that you wouldn't use in your kitchen such as calcium carbonate, emulsifiers etc) are the root of all evil. If we only ate meat, veg and fruit we would most likely all be healthy.
Exactly - it's a choice. Those things are available in supermarkets.
So, either we ask people to stop eating crap (won't work) or tax/regulate that stuff into oblivion.
Or restrict NHS care to people with a healthy weight.
And then ban those who do dangerous hobbies from A and E (climbing, abseiling, mountain biking etc)?
Another classic. You'll find someone who eats well and keeps active will have a significantly reduced impact on the NHS over someone who is sedentary and overweight over the course iof their life, even accounting for the odd broken collarbone.
This attitude to keeping healthy is so ingrained in UK culture that it's very difficult to see a sustainable path for the NHS. People like me will start to refuse to pay the tax that supports such an attitude.
So you want the NHS to treat only healthy people? Is that right?
No, you haven't got that right.
I know what you are saying - you think that only people who look after their health deserve healthcare. I think thats rather extreme. We can all look at someone who smokes, drinks too much, takes not exercise and eats a rubbish diet and be annoyed that they might need more healthcare. But they pay taxes too. I would love it if no one was overweight, all took regular exercise and ate a healthy diet. It would be far better for the nation and people would probably be a lot happier too. But we don't live in that world. You come dangerously close to suggesting someone overweight should not get healthcare.
That's not at all how I read Eabhal's comment.
NHS healthcare is quite rightly universal, and he's not taking issue with that. What I think he's saying, is that having the right to healthcare doesn't therefore set aside what should be at least a moral responsibility to do your best to look after your own health.
No one cares about the China spy case . And most realize that with Trump in the WH we need to suck up to China.
If the government sabotaged the case then I’m afraid that’s the reality of where we are .
A lot of people and mps do care about the China case and frankly this controversy plus the London Chinese Embassy has made it near impossible for Starmer to do a trade deal
Furthermore , you do know the Speaker is furious about this controversy and the safety of mps
I don’t care and the papers are flogging a dead horse .
You are in denial
It matters to the security of our nation and our mps
Starmer only needs to publish the secret meeting minutes that he now admits Powell attended
No one cares about the China spy case . And most realize that with Trump in the WH we need to suck up to China.
If the government sabotaged the case then I’m afraid that’s the reality of where we are .
A lot of people and mps do care about the China case and frankly this controversy plus the London Chinese Embassy has made it near impossible for Starmer to do a trade deal
Furthermore , you do know the Speaker is furious about this controversy and the safety of mps
I don’t care and the papers are flogging a dead horse .
You are in denial
It matters to the security of our nation and our mps
Starmer only needs to publish the secret meeting minutes that he now admits Powell attended
Post PMQs we know: -The PM is hiding behind a legal argument contradicted by every expert -The Powell meeting the Home Sec and PMOS denied DID happen -Govt WON'T publish the meeting minutes
Still heard no argument why the government could not give the CPS what it asked for."
No one cares about the China spy case . And most realize that with Trump in the WH we need to suck up to China.
If the government sabotaged the case then I’m afraid that’s the reality of where we are .
A lot of people and mps do care about the China case and frankly this controversy plus the London Chinese Embassy has made it near impossible for Starmer to do a trade deal
Furthermore , you do know the Speaker is furious about this controversy and the safety of mps
I don’t care and the papers are flogging a dead horse .
You are in denial
It matters to the security of our nation and our mps
Starmer only needs to publish the secret meeting minutes that he now admits Powell attended
That is the only way for this to go away
And you are avoiding answering my question.
Not sure what it is to be fair
It's the one you replied to with a question of your own:
What I don't understand - and none of the reporting has made this very clear - is that the alleged criminal offence happened under the last government. Whatever way the current government defines our relationship with China ought to be irrelevant to whether or not acting for China at the time amounted to espionage (or whatever the precise charge was).
Post PMQs we know: -The PM is hiding behind a legal argument contradicted by every expert -The Powell meeting the Home Sec and PMOS denied DID happen -Govt WON'T publish the meeting minutes
Still heard no argument why the government could not give the CPS what it asked for."
@CAForever submitted detailed plans for the next great American city, an hour north of Silicon Valley, including: Solano Foundry, America’s largest manufacturing park, Solano Shipyard, our largest shipyard, and walkable neighborhoods for 400,000 Californians. https://x.com/jansramek/status/1978161081928572975
That popped up in my feed. There's a load of angst in the comments regarding the idea you might be able to walk places, which is apparently commie or at least unAmerican
Question: Do I want to upgrade my iPhone 15 Pro Max for a 17 Pro Max? £480 trade in is tempting - will I be able to keep it in tradable condition for another year...?
New cameras will be useful for filming, especially the selfie camera as I use that a lot. Then again there is literally nothing wrong with it...
Who owns the phone, if you own it personally you could get you business to buy the new one and pocket the £480 cash
Can’t you put it on your election expenses? It will be good practice for when you are an MSP. 😄
No one cares about the China spy case . And most realize that with Trump in the WH we need to suck up to China.
If the government sabotaged the case then I’m afraid that’s the reality of where we are .
A lot of people and mps do care about the China case and frankly this controversy plus the London Chinese Embassy has made it near impossible for Starmer to do a trade deal
Furthermore , you do know the Speaker is furious about this controversy and the safety of mps
I don’t care and the papers are flogging a dead horse .
You are in denial
It matters to the security of our nation and our mps
Starmer only needs to publish the secret meeting minutes that he now admits Powell attended
That is the only way for this to go away
And you are avoiding answering my question.
Not sure what it is to be fair
It's the one you replied to with a question of your own:
What I don't understand - and none of the reporting has made this very clear - is that the alleged criminal offence happened under the last government. Whatever way the current government defines our relationship with China ought to be irrelevant to whether or not acting for China at the time amounted to espionage (or whatever the precise charge was).
Can anyone explain this to me ?
The alleged spies were charged in April 2024, the case was dropped in September 2024 as the current government would not supply the evidence requested by the CPS as it claimed the previous government had not designated the Chinese as an enemy state (not even relevant it turns out) and the case collapsed. Now we need to know who refused to supply the evidence (govt claim deputy NSA alone, nobody else involved) and if anyone else had input into this, like ministers etc or SKS or Powell
Beta = lower status male, as opposed to alpha; wimpy, uses oat milk and eats vegan scones at NT cafes as opposed to raw steaks Cuck = cuckoo = allusion to the beta status male's wife being rogered by alpha males, I believe, with ensuing illegitimate offspring (yes, yes, I know, but those of a certain tendency probably don't spend their weekends birdwatching, or at least watching the feathered variety)
It's a very nasty insult when used in person.
Ouch. That’s quite comprehensive.
So presumably swingers who go to dogging sites.
Self-image vs actuality for Pete Hegseth?
(Amusingly, on his "no fatties in the military" speech, they withdrew some Texas National Guard from their invasion of Chicago after some on social media published photos of the cowboy chunkers.
Hegseth isn’t wrong, the old movie stereotype of the cops sitting in their car outside the donut shop does appear to have spread to certain areas of the military.
Those TX National Guard aren’t going to be chasing anyone, isn’t military service supposed to be about discipline and readiness? That bunch of fatties clearly isn’t passing any fitness test.
Here's one of the young MAGA crowd in the Politico story.
That's the advantage of being a MAGA and the world of alternative truths. In his mind he is most definitely the alpha.
The last thing that you can still be rude about - weight. I see a lad who has taken care of his appearance - hair is well cut and under control, he's clean shaven and wearing a nice suit that fits his, admittedly somewhat large, frame.
I'm not sure that's true actually. People are extremely touchy about weight and it's absolutely not acceptable to bring it up in the workplace or as a term of abuse.
That's a big part of the problem with weight - normalisation. It's an exceptionally serious problem that is hushed up - consider all the "no underlying health conditions" stories we saw during COVID and it turned out the patient was obese and their body was already under huge strain.
They might not do it in person but just now on PB people are laughing at this chap because if his weight. They wouldn't about his ethnicity or sex or height. (Actually if he was short some probably would, and that's even less fair).
Those aren't things you can change*. In 99% of cases your weight reflects your behaviour and comparing it to something like height or ethnicity is crass.
*I know, I know.
He doesn't look that old. Mostly fat children are down to their parents. And actually weight is not a simple issue. It certainly isn't as simple as just reflecting behaviour. Environment is important too. As are genetics. I used to run 3 x weekly, 5 or more miles. I was never slim. My body type does not do that. My sister is hugely active - runs and walks most days. She's also not slim.
My wife is never overweight whether she is running a lot (as now) or not (as sometimes happens).
That betrays the usual mistake that people make - that exercise is the way to reduce weight. It takes a significant amount of running/cycling/swimming to burn off a single slice of cake. It's all about diet. 200-300 calories in a pint of beer etc etc.
Anyway, whenever you bring this up you just get a host of excuses and whataboutery with people unable to take personal responsibility. That's why it will take a significant government intervention to solve.
And calories is also a poor measure. Multiple studies suggest that if you consume more calories than 'required' you will gain weight but nothing like the amount expected. And the reverse is also true. A low calorie diet does not mean you will keep losing weight.
The food industry is a lot to blame. Convenience food, heavily processed food (a good guide is any ingredients that you wouldn't use in your kitchen such as calcium carbonate, emulsifiers etc) are the root of all evil. If we only ate meat, veg and fruit we would most likely all be healthy.
Exactly - it's a choice. Those things are available in supermarkets.
So, either we ask people to stop eating crap (won't work) or tax/regulate that stuff into oblivion.
Or restrict NHS care to people with a healthy weight.
And then ban those who do dangerous hobbies from A and E (climbing, abseiling, mountain biking etc)?
Another classic. You'll find someone who eats well and keeps active will have a significantly reduced impact on the NHS over someone who is sedentary and overweight over the course iof their life, even accounting for the odd broken collarbone.
This attitude to keeping healthy is so ingrained in UK culture that it's very difficult to see a sustainable path for the NHS. People like me will start to refuse to pay the tax that supports such an attitude.
So you want the NHS to treat only healthy people? Is that right?
No, you haven't got that right.
I know what you are saying - you think that only people who look after their health deserve healthcare. I think thats rather extreme. We can all look at someone who smokes, drinks too much, takes not exercise and eats a rubbish diet and be annoyed that they might need more healthcare. But they pay taxes too. I would love it if no one was overweight, all took regular exercise and ate a healthy diet. It would be far better for the nation and people would probably be a lot happier too. But we don't live in that world. You come dangerously close to suggesting someone overweight should not get healthcare.
Some people eat poor food because it’s cheaper and they can’t afford better food. They don’t take exercise because they are working all hours to feed their families. Eliminate poverty and provide practical education and you improve health.
@CAForever submitted detailed plans for the next great American city, an hour north of Silicon Valley, including: Solano Foundry, America’s largest manufacturing park, Solano Shipyard, our largest shipyard, and walkable neighborhoods for 400,000 Californians. https://x.com/jansramek/status/1978161081928572975
That popped up in my feed. There's a load of angst in the comments regarding the idea you might be able to walk places, which is apparently commie or at least unAmerican
And would be cruel to fat ****s, which is apparently a consideration.
No one cares about the China spy case . And most realize that with Trump in the WH we need to suck up to China.
If the government sabotaged the case then I’m afraid that’s the reality of where we are .
A lot of people and mps do care about the China case and frankly this controversy plus the London Chinese Embassy has made it near impossible for Starmer to do a trade deal
Furthermore , you do know the Speaker is furious about this controversy and the safety of mps
I don’t care and the papers are flogging a dead horse .
You are in denial
It matters to the security of our nation and our mps
Starmer only needs to publish the secret meeting minutes that he now admits Powell attended
That is the only way for this to go away
And you are avoiding answering my question.
Not sure what it is to be fair
It's the one you replied to with a question of your own:
What I don't understand - and none of the reporting has made this very clear - is that the alleged criminal offence happened under the last government. Whatever way the current government defines our relationship with China ought to be irrelevant to whether or not acting for China at the time amounted to espionage (or whatever the precise charge was).
Can anyone explain this to me ?
It's a fair question and Starmer's defence , but if it was as simple as that then why is the CPS, the Speaker, the media and the opposition pursuing it ?
I do not know if Powell was involved, but that seems to be critical and if there is evidence he was then both Powell and Starmer's jobs are on the line due to their denials
Tories holding the government to account on matters of national security. Reform retweeting month old polls like excited schoolgirls.
UK '25
Maybe this could be the issue to get the Tories back into a better position in the polls.
They need a win to start the climb. Mandy, this, something. Some issue to point to and say 'this is what proper opposition looks like' - not retweeting polls, proclaiming death of parties and claiming 'something is happening out there' (who cares?!)
Beta = lower status male, as opposed to alpha; wimpy, uses oat milk and eats vegan scones at NT cafes as opposed to raw steaks Cuck = cuckoo = allusion to the beta status male's wife being rogered by alpha males, I believe, with ensuing illegitimate offspring (yes, yes, I know, but those of a certain tendency probably don't spend their weekends birdwatching, or at least watching the feathered variety)
It's a very nasty insult when used in person.
Ouch. That’s quite comprehensive.
So presumably swingers who go to dogging sites.
Self-image vs actuality for Pete Hegseth?
(Amusingly, on his "no fatties in the military" speech, they withdrew some Texas National Guard from their invasion of Chicago after some on social media published photos of the cowboy chunkers.
Hegseth isn’t wrong, the old movie stereotype of the cops sitting in their car outside the donut shop does appear to have spread to certain areas of the military.
Those TX National Guard aren’t going to be chasing anyone, isn’t military service supposed to be about discipline and readiness? That bunch of fatties clearly isn’t passing any fitness test.
Here's one of the young MAGA crowd in the Politico story.
That's the advantage of being a MAGA and the world of alternative truths. In his mind he is most definitely the alpha.
The last thing that you can still be rude about - weight. I see a lad who has taken care of his appearance - hair is well cut and under control, he's clean shaven and wearing a nice suit that fits his, admittedly somewhat large, frame.
I'm not sure that's true actually. People are extremely touchy about weight and it's absolutely not acceptable to bring it up in the workplace or as a term of abuse.
That's a big part of the problem with weight - normalisation. It's an exceptionally serious problem that is hushed up - consider all the "no underlying health conditions" stories we saw during COVID and it turned out the patient was obese and their body was already under huge strain.
They might not do it in person but just now on PB people are laughing at this chap because if his weight. They wouldn't about his ethnicity or sex or height. (Actually if he was short some probably would, and that's even less fair).
Those aren't things you can change*. In 99% of cases your weight reflects your behaviour and comparing it to something like height or ethnicity is crass.
*I know, I know.
He doesn't look that old. Mostly fat children are down to their parents. And actually weight is not a simple issue. It certainly isn't as simple as just reflecting behaviour. Environment is important too. As are genetics. I used to run 3 x weekly, 5 or more miles. I was never slim. My body type does not do that. My sister is hugely active - runs and walks most days. She's also not slim.
My wife is never overweight whether she is running a lot (as now) or not (as sometimes happens).
That betrays the usual mistake that people make - that exercise is the way to reduce weight. It takes a significant amount of running/cycling/swimming to burn off a single slice of cake. It's all about diet. 200-300 calories in a pint of beer etc etc.
Anyway, whenever you bring this up you just get a host of excuses and whataboutery with people unable to take personal responsibility. That's why it will take a significant government intervention to solve.
I saw a discussion about the potato famine a while ago where people didn't believe the pre-famine diet - which was about 4,000 calories of potatoes and buttermilk daily.
That diet would make you fantastically obese today, but people are much less active than 19th century farm labourers. Similarly, I was very surprised to learn that average calorie consumption in Britain has declined, even as the obesity epidemic has exploded.
If you could break the stranglehold that cars have on cities, and put more walking back into people's daily life, then you'd make a big difference to obesity.
Yes, that is true. It's not calories that have increased but rather the nature of those calories (processed foods instead of bread and potatoes) and activity reduced that has made us obese as a nation.
The genetics haven't changed much over the decades, neither here nor the USA, to account for the huge rise in obesity.
The October tattie howkin holidays (on right now) kept everyone's waistline in check
Old-fashioned letters are obviously more important than we thought.
"Royal Mail fined £21m for missing delivery targets Millions of important letters are arriving late, the communications regulator said, and people aren't getting what they pay for."
Old-fashioned letters are obviously more important than we thought.
"Royal Mail fined £21m for missing delivery targets Millions of important letters are arriving late, the communications regulator said, and people aren't getting what they pay for."
If he ends both Ukraine and Gaza he sort of has to the prize is awarded to someone who has : "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"
It's not (or shouldn't be) awarded on the basis of character.
Against that, however, he has wanted to annexe Canada and Greenland, so maybe that will count against him.
"@Nigel_Farage Fayaz Khan received an 8 month sentence for illegal entry into the UK. Where are the sentences for the 35,000 migrants who've illegally entered this year?"
Beta = lower status male, as opposed to alpha; wimpy, uses oat milk and eats vegan scones at NT cafes as opposed to raw steaks Cuck = cuckoo = allusion to the beta status male's wife being rogered by alpha males, I believe, with ensuing illegitimate offspring (yes, yes, I know, but those of a certain tendency probably don't spend their weekends birdwatching, or at least watching the feathered variety)
It's a very nasty insult when used in person.
Ouch. That’s quite comprehensive.
So presumably swingers who go to dogging sites.
Self-image vs actuality for Pete Hegseth?
(Amusingly, on his "no fatties in the military" speech, they withdrew some Texas National Guard from their invasion of Chicago after some on social media published photos of the cowboy chunkers.
Hegseth isn’t wrong, the old movie stereotype of the cops sitting in their car outside the donut shop does appear to have spread to certain areas of the military.
Those TX National Guard aren’t going to be chasing anyone, isn’t military service supposed to be about discipline and readiness? That bunch of fatties clearly isn’t passing any fitness test.
Here's one of the young MAGA crowd in the Politico story.
That's the advantage of being a MAGA and the world of alternative truths. In his mind he is most definitely the alpha.
"They're eating all the cats and dogs."
Hey, I thought we were talking about that yesterday, the problem of getting carnivores for dinner to keep those of us happy who are that way inclined.
Oh Lordy, are the same people who whipped themselves into a frenzy over Chagos are now predicting Starmer’s demise today.
I wish they would bet.
If he has nothing to hide then no problem
Publish the minutes of the secret meeting with Powell as revealed by the Times and then the story will move on
I have no idea if Powell was involved but a lot of people across the political divide deserve an answer
I heard they had a curry at this secret meeting.
Is that the best you can do
It is a genuine controversy and your forum is one of the best to expand and discuss issues but frankly it should be better than just making irrelevant comments unless you want to closedown discussions
Oh Lordy, are the same people who whipped themselves into a frenzy over Chagos are now predicting Starmer’s demise today.
I wish they would bet.
This is also interesting.
"More frequent viewers of GB News wrongly believe that net migration to the UK is increasing than those of other major channels, according to a study examining public attitudes to broadcasting impartiality."
@CAForever submitted detailed plans for the next great American city, an hour north of Silicon Valley, including: Solano Foundry, America’s largest manufacturing park, Solano Shipyard, our largest shipyard, and walkable neighborhoods for 400,000 Californians. https://x.com/jansramek/status/1978161081928572975
That popped up in my feed. There's a load of angst in the comments regarding the idea you might be able to walk places, which is apparently commie or at least unAmerican
Bots or idiots. All the world's best loved urban spaces are walkable.
Question: Do I want to upgrade my iPhone 15 Pro Max for a 17 Pro Max? £480 trade in is tempting - will I be able to keep it in tradable condition for another year...?
New cameras will be useful for filming, especially the selfie camera as I use that a lot. Then again there is literally nothing wrong with it...
Why not ditch the phone altogether and use a laptop for everything instead?
Beta = lower status male, as opposed to alpha; wimpy, uses oat milk and eats vegan scones at NT cafes as opposed to raw steaks Cuck = cuckoo = allusion to the beta status male's wife being rogered by alpha males, I believe, with ensuing illegitimate offspring (yes, yes, I know, but those of a certain tendency probably don't spend their weekends birdwatching, or at least watching the feathered variety)
It's a very nasty insult when used in person.
Ouch. That’s quite comprehensive.
So presumably swingers who go to dogging sites.
Self-image vs actuality for Pete Hegseth?
(Amusingly, on his "no fatties in the military" speech, they withdrew some Texas National Guard from their invasion of Chicago after some on social media published photos of the cowboy chunkers.
Hegseth isn’t wrong, the old movie stereotype of the cops sitting in their car outside the donut shop does appear to have spread to certain areas of the military.
Those TX National Guard aren’t going to be chasing anyone, isn’t military service supposed to be about discipline and readiness? That bunch of fatties clearly isn’t passing any fitness test.
Here's one of the young MAGA crowd in the Politico story.
That's the advantage of being a MAGA and the world of alternative truths. In his mind he is most definitely the alpha.
The last thing that you can still be rude about - weight. I see a lad who has taken care of his appearance - hair is well cut and under control, he's clean shaven and wearing a nice suit that fits his, admittedly somewhat large, frame.
I'm not sure that's true actually. People are extremely touchy about weight and it's absolutely not acceptable to bring it up in the workplace or as a term of abuse.
That's a big part of the problem with weight - normalisation. It's an exceptionally serious problem that is hushed up - consider all the "no underlying health conditions" stories we saw during COVID and it turned out the patient was obese and their body was already under huge strain.
They might not do it in person but just now on PB people are laughing at this chap because if his weight. They wouldn't about his ethnicity or sex or height. (Actually if he was short some probably would, and that's even less fair).
Those aren't things you can change*. In 99% of cases your weight reflects your behaviour and comparing it to something like height or ethnicity is crass.
*I know, I know.
He doesn't look that old. Mostly fat children are down to their parents. And actually weight is not a simple issue. It certainly isn't as simple as just reflecting behaviour. Environment is important too. As are genetics. I used to run 3 x weekly, 5 or more miles. I was never slim. My body type does not do that. My sister is hugely active - runs and walks most days. She's also not slim.
My wife is never overweight whether she is running a lot (as now) or not (as sometimes happens).
That betrays the usual mistake that people make - that exercise is the way to reduce weight. It takes a significant amount of running/cycling/swimming to burn off a single slice of cake. It's all about diet. 200-300 calories in a pint of beer etc etc.
Anyway, whenever you bring this up you just get a host of excuses and whataboutery with people unable to take personal responsibility. That's why it will take a significant government intervention to solve.
And calories is also a poor measure. Multiple studies suggest that if you consume more calories than 'required' you will gain weight but nothing like the amount expected. And the reverse is also true. A low calorie diet does not mean you will keep losing weight.
The food industry is a lot to blame. Convenience food, heavily processed food (a good guide is any ingredients that you wouldn't use in your kitchen such as calcium carbonate, emulsifiers etc) are the root of all evil. If we only ate meat, veg and fruit we would most likely all be healthy.
Exactly - it's a choice. Those things are available in supermarkets.
So, either we ask people to stop eating crap (won't work) or tax/regulate that stuff into oblivion.
Or restrict NHS care to people with a healthy weight.
And then ban those who do dangerous hobbies from A and E (climbing, abseiling, mountain biking etc)?
Another classic. You'll find someone who eats well and keeps active will have a significantly reduced impact on the NHS over someone who is sedentary and overweight over the course iof their life, even accounting for the odd broken collarbone.
This attitude to keeping healthy is so ingrained in UK culture that it's very difficult to see a sustainable path for the NHS. People like me will start to refuse to pay the tax that supports such an attitude.
So you want the NHS to treat only healthy people? Is that right?
No, you haven't got that right.
I know what you are saying - you think that only people who look after their health deserve healthcare. I think thats rather extreme. We can all look at someone who smokes, drinks too much, takes not exercise and eats a rubbish diet and be annoyed that they might need more healthcare. But they pay taxes too. I would love it if no one was overweight, all took regular exercise and ate a healthy diet. It would be far better for the nation and people would probably be a lot happier too. But we don't live in that world. You come dangerously close to suggesting someone overweight should not get healthcare.
Oh Lordy, are the same people who whipped themselves into a frenzy over Chagos are now predicting Starmer’s demise today.
I wish they would bet.
This is also interesting.
"More frequent viewers of GB News wrongly believe that net migration to the UK is increasing than those of other major channels, according to a study examining public attitudes to broadcasting impartiality."
They could find the information in two minutes but are happier to just be constantly angry and wank themselves into oblivion over the latest musings from their Dear Leader.
If he ends both Ukraine and Gaza he sort of has to the prize is awarded to someone who has : "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"
It's not (or shouldn't be) awarded on the basis of character.
Against that, however, he has wanted to annexe Canada and Greenland, so maybe that will count against him.
Not sure the citizens of Chicago or LA or Washington DC or Portland are seeing much by way of reduction of standing armies...
No one cares about the China spy case . And most realize that with Trump in the WH we need to suck up to China.
If the government sabotaged the case then I’m afraid that’s the reality of where we are .
A lot of people and mps do care about the China case and frankly this controversy plus the London Chinese Embassy has made it near impossible for Starmer to do a trade deal
Furthermore , you do know the Speaker is furious about this controversy and the safety of mps
I don’t care and the papers are flogging a dead horse .
You are in denial
It matters to the security of our nation and our mps
Starmer only needs to publish the secret meeting minutes that he now admits Powell attended
That is the only way for this to go away
And you are avoiding answering my question.
Not sure what it is to be fair
It's the one you replied to with a question of your own:
What I don't understand - and none of the reporting has made this very clear - is that the alleged criminal offence happened under the last government. Whatever way the current government defines our relationship with China ought to be irrelevant to whether or not acting for China at the time amounted to espionage (or whatever the precise charge was).
Can anyone explain this to me ?
The alleged spies were charged in April 2024, the case was dropped in September 2024 as the current government would not supply the evidence requested by the CPS as it claimed the previous government had not designated the Chinese as an enemy state (not even relevant it turns out) and the case collapsed. Now we need to know who refused to supply the evidence (govt claim deputy NSA alone, nobody else involved) and if anyone else had input into this, like ministers etc or SKS or Powell
Still as clear as mud.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceq057734w1o.amp ..In a rare intervention, Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson, who is the most senior prosecutor in England and Wales, said the CPS had tried to obtain further evidence from the government "over many months" but witness statements did not meet the threshold to prosecute. He said while there was sufficient evidence when charges were originally brought against the two men in April 2024, a precedent set by another spying case earlier this year meant China would need to have been labelled a "threat to national security" at the time of the alleged offences. However, some legal experts have questioned whether the CPS would have needed this evidence to go ahead with the prosecution...
"@Nigel_Farage Fayaz Khan received an 8 month sentence for illegal entry into the UK. Where are the sentences for the 35,000 migrants who've illegally entered this year?"
No one cares about the China spy case . And most realize that with Trump in the WH we need to suck up to China.
If the government sabotaged the case then I’m afraid that’s the reality of where we are .
A lot of people and mps do care about the China case and frankly this controversy plus the London Chinese Embassy has made it near impossible for Starmer to do a trade deal
Furthermore , you do know the Speaker is furious about this controversy and the safety of mps
I don’t care and the papers are flogging a dead horse .
You are in denial
It matters to the security of our nation and our mps
Starmer only needs to publish the secret meeting minutes that he now admits Powell attended
That is the only way for this to go away
And you are avoiding answering my question.
Not sure what it is to be fair
It's the one you replied to with a question of your own:
What I don't understand - and none of the reporting has made this very clear - is that the alleged criminal offence happened under the last government. Whatever way the current government defines our relationship with China ought to be irrelevant to whether or not acting for China at the time amounted to espionage (or whatever the precise charge was).
Can anyone explain this to me ?
The alleged spies were charged in April 2024, the case was dropped in September 2024 as the current government would not supply the evidence requested by the CPS as it claimed the previous government had not designated the Chinese as an enemy state (not even relevant it turns out) and the case collapsed. Now we need to know who refused to supply the evidence (govt claim deputy NSA alone, nobody else involved) and if anyone else had input into this, like ministers etc or SKS or Powell
Still as clear as mud.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceq057734w1o.amp ..In a rare intervention, Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson, who is the most senior prosecutor in England and Wales, said the CPS had tried to obtain further evidence from the government "over many months" but witness statements did not meet the threshold to prosecute. He said while there was sufficient evidence when charges were originally brought against the two men in April 2024, a precedent set by another spying case earlier this year meant China would need to have been labelled a "threat to national security" at the time of the alleged offences. However, some legal experts have questioned whether the CPS would have needed this evidence to go ahead with the prosecution...
Cleverly provided more non-clarification of the then status quo. ..As we just reported, at the end of PMQs, the Speaker granted Tory shadow housing secretary James Cleverly an intervention to clarify what he had said in a speech about China. Standing at the dispatch box, Cleverly says he was misquoted by the prime minister. He says describing China in “one word” was impossible, impractical and unwise. Here's the section of the 2023 speech he's referring to: “I’m often asked to express that policy in a single phrase, or to sum up China itself in one word, whether ‘threat’, or ‘partner’, or ‘adversary’. And I want to start by explaining why that is impossible, impractical and – most importantly – unwise.”
Old-fashioned letters are obviously more important than we thought.
"Royal Mail fined £21m for missing delivery targets Millions of important letters are arriving late, the communications regulator said, and people aren't getting what they pay for."
Oh Lordy, are the same people who whipped themselves into a frenzy over Chagos are now predicting Starmer’s demise today.
I wish they would bet.
Chagos was ridiculous but not likely to bring down a government on its own. More likely in this instance is the resignation of Powell.
Some of our low IQ posters thought it would bring down the government.
Starmer and his Government are already well and truly hated so throwing Rayner and Mandelson under the bus previously was of no benefit to Starmer whatsoever. He needs to stand by Powell this time.
During the previous administration Ministers went to KGB parties, put sons of KGB grandees in the HoL, operated parallel Foreign Policies and set up billion pound personal aggrandisement grifts, and no one seemed particularly concerned by either national security nor corruption.
We even have someone who is considered the Prime Minister in waiting who has Trump and maybe "the most impressive leader of modern times" on speed dial.
Oh Lordy, are the same people who whipped themselves into a frenzy over Chagos are now predicting Starmer’s demise today.
I wish they would bet.
Chagos was ridiculous but not likely to bring down a government on its own. More likely in this instance is the resignation of Powell.
Some of our low IQ posters thought it would bring down the government.
The Chagos deal?
Has anything in recent times brought down a government, in terms of policy? There isnt really anything that could bring down a PM with the kind of majority he has except his own sense of shame and personal responsibility. And it requires a lack of both of these characteristics to get into the position in the first place. You might get a resignation or two though from this if theres a trail somewhere. The only way it would be curtains for Starmer would be if he is personally tied to the actions and has just lied about not being.
It's a murky situation with too much complication and unless personal identifiable wrong doing comes out it will just disappear.
Proposed iPhone 17 Max would be owned by the same business who owns the 15 Pro Max I would be trading in. Its just a question of whether the new handset is worth the upgrade over the 2 year old one. As much as anything I have an eye on preserving the trade in value before either it tanks naturally or I damage the thing and its worthless...
Oh Lordy, are the same people who whipped themselves into a frenzy over Chagos are now predicting Starmer’s demise today.
I wish they would bet.
If he has nothing to hide then no problem
Publish the minutes of the secret meeting with Powell as revealed by the Times and then the story will move on
I have no idea if Powell was involved but a lot of people across the political divide deserve an answer
I heard they had a curry at this secret meeting.
Is that the best you can do
It is a genuine controversy and your forum is one of the best to expand and discuss issues but frankly it should be better than just making irrelevant comments unless you want to closedown discussions
I’m encouraging discussions and begging people to bet.
Question: Do I want to upgrade my iPhone 15 Pro Max for a 17 Pro Max? £480 trade in is tempting - will I be able to keep it in tradable condition for another year...?
New cameras will be useful for filming, especially the selfie camera as I use that a lot. Then again there is literally nothing wrong with it...
Why not ditch the phone altogether and use a laptop for everything instead?
Because he cannot fit a laptop in his pocket.
The phone also has a much better camera than the laptop.
Old-fashioned letters are obviously more important than we thought.
"Royal Mail fined £21m for missing delivery targets Millions of important letters are arriving late, the communications regulator said, and people aren't getting what they pay for."
Though Ofcom did also recently allow RM to deliver second class post every other weekday under its USO, so with that change it should be able to more easily meet its second class and also its first class delivery targets
Proposed iPhone 17 Max would be owned by the same business who owns the 15 Pro Max I would be trading in. Its just a question of whether the new handset is worth the upgrade over the 2 year old one. As much as anything I have an eye on preserving the trade in value before either it tanks naturally or I damage the thing and its worthless...
Given what you use it for you’ll really benefit from the better camera and battery life of the Pro Max 17.
Proposed iPhone 17 Max would be owned by the same business who owns the 15 Pro Max I would be trading in. Its just a question of whether the new handset is worth the upgrade over the 2 year old one. As much as anything I have an eye on preserving the trade in value before either it tanks naturally or I damage the thing and its worthless...
Buy the new one. Stick the old one in a drawer for when you drop the new one. If you are that worried about trade-ins, don't pay the Apple tax in the first place. On camera quality, bear in mind some people have massive, high res displays.
Already some comment from journos that Starmer might have misled parliament today, at least will likely need to 'correct the record' All so he could try and 'win' PMQs.
There is a danger that Labour are becoming far too wed on last-government-itis. A lot of this does seem to hinge on them trying to make the Tories take the fall, when it appears to be a bit of a grey area.
I hardly exonerate the Tories here - their track record shows a frightening lack of competence across all sorts of topics - but you do get the feeling that by trying to pin all this on the last government this government is starting to tie itself in knots.
The Labour line on this doesn't pass the smell test. If the Tories were to blame for the collapse of the case, then it would have happened last year and not now.
The reality is that the Labour Government wants closer relations with China and therefore the case was an embarrassment that needed to go away. But they can't admit that, so hence why we are where we are.
What I don't understand - and none of the reporting has made this very clear - is that the alleged criminal offence happened under the last government. Whatever way the current government defines our relationship with China ought to be irrelevant to whether or not acting for China at the time amounted to espionage (or whatever the precise charge was).
Can anyone explain this to me ?
Cleverly's "clarification" of the previous government's stance is even more baffling.
..As we just reported, at the end of PMQs, the Speaker granted Tory shadow housing secretary James Cleverly an intervention to clarify what he had said in a speech about China. Standing at the dispatch box, Cleverly says he was misquoted by the prime minister. He says describing China in “one word” was impossible, impractical and unwise. Here's the section of the 2023 speech he's referring to: “I’m often asked to express that policy in a single phrase, or to sum up China itself in one word, whether ‘threat’, or ‘partner’, or ‘adversary’. And I want to start by explaining why that is impossible, impractical and – most importantly – unwise.”
Starmer has said he'll publish the documents relating to the case. Which might - or might not - make things a little clearer ?
It's the meeting Powell had that the Times exposed and now Starmer admits took place is where his problem lies if Powell was involved, as Starmer and Powell would both have to resign due to their denials
The minutes of that meeting are being demanded and so far resisted which you have to ask - Why ?
Was Ed Balls right? Is China a dead cat to distract from Mandygate or a different dead cat to distract from McSweeneygate in light of the new book out?
Old-fashioned letters are obviously more important than we thought.
"Royal Mail fined £21m for missing delivery targets Millions of important letters are arriving late, the communications regulator said, and people aren't getting what they pay for."
Though Ofcom did also recently allow RM to deliver second class post every other weekday under its USO, so with that change it should be able to more easily meet its second class and also its first class delivery targets
Recently took 12 days for a first class card to get from Devon to London.
No one cares about the China spy case . And most realize that with Trump in the WH we need to suck up to China.
If the government sabotaged the case then I’m afraid that’s the reality of where we are .
A lot of people and mps do care about the China case and frankly this controversy plus the London Chinese Embassy has made it near impossible for Starmer to do a trade deal
Furthermore , you do know the Speaker is furious about this controversy and the safety of mps
I don’t care and the papers are flogging a dead horse .
You are in denial
It matters to the security of our nation and our mps
Starmer only needs to publish the secret meeting minutes that he now admits Powell attended
That is the only way for this to go away
And you are avoiding answering my question.
Not sure what it is to be fair
It's the one you replied to with a question of your own:
What I don't understand - and none of the reporting has made this very clear - is that the alleged criminal offence happened under the last government. Whatever way the current government defines our relationship with China ought to be irrelevant to whether or not acting for China at the time amounted to espionage (or whatever the precise charge was).
Can anyone explain this to me ?
Under the official secrets act the espionage is only a criminal offence if China is a threat to national security/an enemy (seen both an haven’t bother to check the legislation).
This is dependent on the government view - and a statement from a government witness as to that is the government position. They have refused to provide that statement with the result that the case cannot succeed (which is why their claim that the CPS made the decision to drop charges independently is specious - yes it’s true but only because of government action )
Old-fashioned letters are obviously more important than we thought.
"Royal Mail fined £21m for missing delivery targets Millions of important letters are arriving late, the communications regulator said, and people aren't getting what they pay for."
Though Ofcom did also recently allow RM to deliver second class post every other weekday under its USO, so with that change it should be able to more easily meet its second class and also its first class delivery targets
Recently took 12 days for a first class card to get from Devon to London.
When I was claiming my pension I twice sent recorded delivery items to the pension provider one 24h and one 48h. Both arrived several days late.
Oh Lordy, are the same people who whipped themselves into a frenzy over Chagos are now predicting Starmer’s demise today.
I wish they would bet.
Chagos was ridiculous but not likely to bring down a government on its own. More likely in this instance is the resignation of Powell.
Some of our low IQ posters thought it would bring down the government.
The Chagos deal?
Has anything in recent times brought down a government, in terms of policy? There isnt really anything that could bring down a PM with the kind of majority he has except his own sense of shame and personal responsibility. And it requires a lack of both of these characteristics to get into the position in the first place. You might get a resignation or two though from this if theres a trail somewhere. The only way it would be curtains for Starmer would be if he is personally tied to the actions and has just lied about not being.
It's a murky situation with too much complication and unless personal identifiable wrong doing comes out it will just disappear.
Starmer would be in jeopardy if he's lied to the House but he's surely too savvy to have done that.
I’m sure calling China a “ threat to national security “ will do wonders for our trade and future deals with them !
Some people need to get real and realize we’re in a new world . The UK has no choice but to suck up to China .
Yes you keep saying this and need to understand repeating bullshit is just verbal diarrhoea.
Every country, pretty much, is a potential threat to national security. Every country, pretty much, is a potential partner.
One would hope that we would have generally good relationships with fellow democracies with whom we share common interests. But there are also times when good relationships those who are not ideologically close to us will be in our interests.
Oh Lordy, are the same people who whipped themselves into a frenzy over Chagos are now predicting Starmer’s demise today.
I wish they would bet.
Chagos was ridiculous but not likely to bring down a government on its own. More likely in this instance is the resignation of Powell.
Some of our low IQ posters thought it would bring down the government.
The Chagos deal?
Has anything in recent times brought down a government, in terms of policy? There isnt really anything that could bring down a PM with the kind of majority he has except his own sense of shame and personal responsibility. And it requires a lack of both of these characteristics to get into the position in the first place. You might get a resignation or two though from this if theres a trail somewhere. The only way it would be curtains for Starmer would be if he is personally tied to the actions and has just lied about not being.
It's a murky situation with too much complication and unless personal identifiable wrong doing comes out it will just disappear.
Starmer would be in jeopardy if he's lied to the House but he's surely too savvy to have done that.
He's a senior lawyer. Surely he wouldn't have lied!
WATO had Prof Mark Elliott from Cambridge commenting on law re: China spying
AIUI he said that the Govt is not the "gatekeeper" as to the determination of whether China was/is a threat to national security but that it is up to a jury to determine that.
Interested to know PB's learned opinion of: 1 How the govt, which is in charge of international relations and national security, is not the sole arbiter on which countries are a threat to national security 2 How a jury, drawn from the general public and ignorant of security briefings, is supposed to do anything other than accept evidence on the govt's determination at the relevant time.
Above ignores the Prof's confusion at to whether OSA or NSA is the current legislation or whether the determination of threat can be retrospectively changed.
I’m sure calling China a “ threat to national security “ will do wonders for our trade and future deals with them !
Some people need to get real and realize we’re in a new world . The UK has no choice but to suck up to China .
I look forward to Labour trotting out this line when the truth comes out.
A couple of days ago Dominic Grieve made a well explained case for the government not needing to explicitly call China an enemy, but merely provide existing evidence of Chinese state behaviour and previous government statements, that these would be sufficient to paint a picture for the Court and Prosecution to proceed with their duties.
This notion that we have to declare China an enemy in green-ink on parchment under the light of a full moon otherwise we can't do anything is a load of rubbish according to Grieve.
No one cares about the China spy case . And most realize that with Trump in the WH we need to suck up to China.
If the government sabotaged the case then I’m afraid that’s the reality of where we are .
Yeah, China is our mate because of Trump
😂
Neither are our mates.
No nation is our ‘mate’
Apart from Australia, NZ and Canada, who I think are pretty staunch mates (two world wars together and counting).
Famously, Australia decoupled from the UK in the middle of WWII, see John Curtin. Australian involvement in the European theatre was less after 1942.
They were still pissed off about Bodyline but the arrival of the Yanks to Europe and the bombing of Darwin it made sense to redeploy to Australia.
At least the Aussies were there at El Alamein.
Once Singapore fell they had to look to their own defences first.
We couldn't help them because we were fighting for survival in Europe and the Med, and had trouble keeping a lid on India.
If we hadn't sent the Prince of Wales and the Repulse on a suicide mission, then Singapore would have been rather better defended. It's a decision of Churchill's that deserves far more approbation.
Oh Lordy, are the same people who whipped themselves into a frenzy over Chagos are now predicting Starmer’s demise today.
I wish they would bet.
Chagos was ridiculous but not likely to bring down a government on its own. More likely in this instance is the resignation of Powell.
Some of our low IQ posters thought it would bring down the government.
The Chagos deal?
Has anything in recent times brought down a government, in terms of policy? There isnt really anything that could bring down a PM with the kind of majority he has except his own sense of shame and personal responsibility. And it requires a lack of both of these characteristics to get into the position in the first place. You might get a resignation or two though from this if theres a trail somewhere. The only way it would be curtains for Starmer would be if he is personally tied to the actions and has just lied about not being.
It's a murky situation with too much complication and unless personal identifiable wrong doing comes out it will just disappear.
Starmer would be in jeopardy if he's lied to the House but he's surely too savvy to have done that.
He's a senior lawyer. Surely he wouldn't have lied!
China compromised the system used to transfer highly secret data around Whitehall and obtained “vast amounts” of classified government information over a period of many years, Dominic Cummings has said
Cummings, who served as a senior adviser to Boris Johnson, said that he and the then prime minister were informed about the breach in 2020. He said he was warned at the time that disclosing some specific details of the breach would be a criminal offence
It included “Strap” material — which is the government term for the highest level of classified information.
Cummings told The Times: “The Cabinet Secretary said, ‘we have to explain something; there’s been a serious problem’, and he talked through what this was
“And it was so bizarre that — not just Boris — a few people in the room were looking around like this. ‘Am I somehow misunderstanding what he’s saying? Because it sounds f***ing crazy’.”
He added: “What I’m saying is that some Strap stuff was compromised and vast amounts of data classified as extremely secret and extremely dangerous for any foreign entity to control was compromised.
“Material from intelligence services. Material from the National Security Secretariat in the Cabinet Office. Things the government has to keep secret. If they’re not secret, then there are very, very serious implications for it.”
He said he would be willing to share what he knew about the data breach with MPs and claimed that the most senior officials in Whitehall had covered it up. Cummings refused to say how the system had been breached.
“If the MPs want to finally have an inquiry about it, I’d be happy to talk about it,” he said. And many people know that what I’m saying is true and many people will back it up.
“And many people know that after the PM was notified about this in 2020, officials from the Cabinet Office then went round telling everybody in the meeting that it was illegal for them to discuss this with the media.”
He declined to say how the system was compromised
He said that he found the collapse of a China spy trial because the government refused to describe Beijing as a threat to national security as “ludicrous”.
“Anyone who has been read in at a high level with the intelligence services on China knows that the word threat doesn't even begin to cover it,” he said.
“The degree of penetration in espionage, in all kinds of operations, penetration of critical national infrastructure, theft of intellectual property, the whole range of things is absolutely extraordinary. A hundred times worse than it's in the public domain.
”Everybody who has been briefed on the critical analyses of these things from the intelligence services knows this is true. The idea that it is somehow a difficult semantic question of whether to define them as a threat or how much of a threat is absolutely puerile nonsense. And everybody in the heart of Whitehall knows this.
Beta = lower status male, as opposed to alpha; wimpy, uses oat milk and eats vegan scones at NT cafes as opposed to raw steaks Cuck = cuckoo = allusion to the beta status male's wife being rogered by alpha males, I believe, with ensuing illegitimate offspring (yes, yes, I know, but those of a certain tendency probably don't spend their weekends birdwatching, or at least watching the feathered variety)
It's a very nasty insult when used in person.
Ouch. That’s quite comprehensive.
So presumably swingers who go to dogging sites.
Self-image vs actuality for Pete Hegseth?
(Amusingly, on his "no fatties in the military" speech, they withdrew some Texas National Guard from their invasion of Chicago after some on social media published photos of the cowboy chunkers.
Hegseth isn’t wrong, the old movie stereotype of the cops sitting in their car outside the donut shop does appear to have spread to certain areas of the military.
Those TX National Guard aren’t going to be chasing anyone, isn’t military service supposed to be about discipline and readiness? That bunch of fatties clearly isn’t passing any fitness test.
Here's one of the young MAGA crowd in the Politico story.
That's the advantage of being a MAGA and the world of alternative truths. In his mind he is most definitely the alpha.
The last thing that you can still be rude about - weight. I see a lad who has taken care of his appearance - hair is well cut and under control, he's clean shaven and wearing a nice suit that fits his, admittedly somewhat large, frame.
I'm not sure that's true actually. People are extremely touchy about weight and it's absolutely not acceptable to bring it up in the workplace or as a term of abuse.
That's a big part of the problem with weight - normalisation. It's an exceptionally serious problem that is hushed up - consider all the "no underlying health conditions" stories we saw during COVID and it turned out the patient was obese and their body was already under huge strain.
They might not do it in person but just now on PB people are laughing at this chap because if his weight. They wouldn't about his ethnicity or sex or height. (Actually if he was short some probably would, and that's even less fair).
Those aren't things you can change*. In 99% of cases your weight reflects your behaviour and comparing it to something like height or ethnicity is crass.
*I know, I know.
He doesn't look that old. Mostly fat children are down to their parents. And actually weight is not a simple issue. It certainly isn't as simple as just reflecting behaviour. Environment is important too. As are genetics. I used to run 3 x weekly, 5 or more miles. I was never slim. My body type does not do that. My sister is hugely active - runs and walks most days. She's also not slim.
My wife is never overweight whether she is running a lot (as now) or not (as sometimes happens).
That betrays the usual mistake that people make - that exercise is the way to reduce weight. It takes a significant amount of running/cycling/swimming to burn off a single slice of cake. It's all about diet. 200-300 calories in a pint of beer etc etc.
Anyway, whenever you bring this up you just get a host of excuses and whataboutery with people unable to take personal responsibility. That's why it will take a significant government intervention to solve.
And calories is also a poor measure. Multiple studies suggest that if you consume more calories than 'required' you will gain weight but nothing like the amount expected. And the reverse is also true. A low calorie diet does not mean you will keep losing weight.
The food industry is a lot to blame. Convenience food, heavily processed food (a good guide is any ingredients that you wouldn't use in your kitchen such as calcium carbonate, emulsifiers etc) are the root of all evil. If we only ate meat, veg and fruit we would most likely all be healthy.
Exactly - it's a choice. Those things are available in supermarkets.
So, either we ask people to stop eating crap (won't work) or tax/regulate that stuff into oblivion.
Or restrict NHS care to people with a healthy weight.
And then ban those who do dangerous hobbies from A and E (climbing, abseiling, mountain biking etc)?
Another classic. You'll find someone who eats well and keeps active will have a significantly reduced impact on the NHS over someone who is sedentary and overweight over the course iof their life, even accounting for the odd broken collarbone.
This attitude to keeping healthy is so ingrained in UK culture that it's very difficult to see a sustainable path for the NHS. People like me will start to refuse to pay the tax that supports such an attitude.
So you want the NHS to treat only healthy people? Is that right?
Now *there’s* a way to make cost savings at the NHS!
Tbh - there is a grain of truth to that. The NHS is an incredibly effective and cost-efficient system for keeping unwell people alive to a bare-minimum standard. A&E is typically excellent if you're about to die etc etc
But it's supposed to be a health service. It's failing badly at keeping people out of the GP practice, out of the hospital.
GP practice is pretty crap which is the bigger issue, next to no up front prevention and jsut wait till people are knackered and it costs a fortune. They have it all back to front.
Old-fashioned letters are obviously more important than we thought.
"Royal Mail fined £21m for missing delivery targets Millions of important letters are arriving late, the communications regulator said, and people aren't getting what they pay for."
Oh Lordy, are the same people who whipped themselves into a frenzy over Chagos are now predicting Starmer’s demise today.
I wish they would bet.
Chagos was ridiculous but not likely to bring down a government on its own. More likely in this instance is the resignation of Powell.
Some of our low IQ posters thought it would bring down the government.
The Chagos deal?
Has anything in recent times brought down a government, in terms of policy? There isnt really anything that could bring down a PM with the kind of majority he has except his own sense of shame and personal responsibility. And it requires a lack of both of these characteristics to get into the position in the first place. You might get a resignation or two though from this if theres a trail somewhere. The only way it would be curtains for Starmer would be if he is personally tied to the actions and has just lied about not being.
It's a murky situation with too much complication and unless personal identifiable wrong doing comes out it will just disappear.
Starmer would be in jeopardy if he's lied to the House but he's surely too savvy to have done that.
He's a senior lawyer. Surely he wouldn't have lied!
Perish the thought!
He’s not Cambridge educated though!
There are perfect worlds and worlds with some sense of reality.
I understand that even academic oases such as Oxford now offer courses at, what one must presume, a very basic level.
Oh Lordy, are the same people who whipped themselves into a frenzy over Chagos are now predicting Starmer’s demise today.
I wish they would bet.
Chagos was ridiculous but not likely to bring down a government on its own. More likely in this instance is the resignation of Powell.
Some of our low IQ posters thought it would bring down the government.
The Chagos deal?
Has anything in recent times brought down a government, in terms of policy? There isnt really anything that could bring down a PM with the kind of majority he has except his own sense of shame and personal responsibility. And it requires a lack of both of these characteristics to get into the position in the first place. You might get a resignation or two though from this if theres a trail somewhere. The only way it would be curtains for Starmer would be if he is personally tied to the actions and has just lied about not being.
It's a murky situation with too much complication and unless personal identifiable wrong doing comes out it will just disappear.
Starmer would be in jeopardy if he's lied to the House but he's surely too savvy to have done that.
Savvy in terms tying everything up in deniability and process, yes I agree. He is a creature of that world. But he’s not politically savvy, per se, IMHO.
There was a point today where it looked very much like he was worried he’d misstepped - the uncharacteristic “I need to double-check that point” was a bit of a panic moment for him I think. By trying to frame this as a blame the opposition piece and play the politics (clumsily) there is a risk of “misspeaking.”
Comments
The minutes of that meeting are being demanded and so far resisted which you have to ask - Why ?
A NIMBY vs YIMBY California ballot initiative during the midterms would be interesting.
It matters to the security of our nation and our mps
Starmer only needs to publish the secret meeting minutes that he now admits Powell attended
That is the only way for this to go away
It's currently an unexploded bomb, it might go right off. I did google the clip of Kemi trying to explain away China's behaviour when she was business secretary, and it does look quite weak. Obviously trying to not make an enemy of China whilst trying to negotiate with them.
NHS healthcare is quite rightly universal, and he's not taking issue with that.
What I think he's saying, is that having the right to healthcare doesn't therefore set aside what should be at least a moral responsibility to do your best to look after your own health.
Reform retweeting month old polls like excited schoolgirls.
UK '25
@NeilDotObrien
Post PMQs we know:
-The PM is hiding behind a legal argument contradicted by every expert
-The Powell meeting the Home Sec and PMOS denied DID happen
-Govt WON'T publish the meeting minutes
Still heard no argument why the government could not give the CPS what it asked for."
https://x.com/NeilDotObrien/status/1978422983417860434
What I don't understand - and none of the reporting has made this very clear - is that the alleged criminal offence happened under the last government.
Whatever way the current government defines our relationship with China ought to be irrelevant to whether or not acting for China at the time amounted to espionage (or whatever the precise charge was).
Can anyone explain this to me ?
Those minutes will be demanded and if Starmer refuses, then what has he to hide ?
He could end this now by publishing those minutes
@IainDale
Three words to describe the Prime Minister's performance at PMQs today.
Petty, evasive and slippery."
https://x.com/IainDale/status/1978421969230917951
Now we need to know who refused to supply the evidence (govt claim deputy NSA alone, nobody else involved) and if anyone else had input into this, like ministers etc or SKS or Powell
I do not know if Powell was involved, but that seems to be critical and if there is evidence he was then both Powell and Starmer's jobs are on the line due to their denials
This is why it is such a big story
"Royal Mail fined £21m for missing delivery targets
Millions of important letters are arriving late, the communications regulator said, and people aren't getting what they pay for."
https://news.sky.com/story/royal-mail-fined-millions-for-failing-to-meet-delivery-targets-again-13450351
https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-trade-war-trump-talks-25c50136
'Who do you work for?'
'The Royal Mail'
'Weren't you supposed to be here on Tuesday?'
I wish they would bet.
Publish the minutes of the secret meeting with Powell as revealed by the Times and then the story will move on
I have no idea if Powell was involved but a lot of people across the political divide deserve an answer
It's not (or shouldn't be) awarded on the basis of character.
Against that, however, he has wanted to annexe Canada and Greenland, so maybe that will count against him.
At least the Aussies were there at El Alamein.
We couldn't help them because we were fighting for survival in Europe and the Med, and had trouble keeping a lid on India.
It's just a lot of excuses.
What about the new Chinese super embassy. Is that an irrelevance too?
It is a genuine controversy and your forum is one of the best to expand and discuss issues but frankly it should be better than just making irrelevant comments unless you want to closedown discussions
"More frequent viewers of GB News wrongly believe that net migration to the UK is increasing than those of other major channels, according to a study examining public attitudes to broadcasting impartiality."
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/oct/15/gb-news-viewers-more-likely-to-wrongly-believe-net-migration-to-uk-increasing
All the world's best loved urban spaces are walkable.
Funny we haven’t heard much from Reform . Perhaps they didn’t want to go there given the recent Russian bribery case in Wales which the RBC ignored .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceq057734w1o.amp
..In a rare intervention, Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson, who is the most senior prosecutor in England and Wales, said the CPS had tried to obtain further evidence from the government "over many months" but witness statements did not meet the threshold to prosecute.
He said while there was sufficient evidence when charges were originally brought against the two men in April 2024, a precedent set by another spying case earlier this year meant China would need to have been labelled a "threat to national security" at the time of the alleged offences.
However, some legal experts have questioned whether the CPS would have needed this evidence to go ahead with the prosecution...
..As we just reported, at the end of PMQs, the Speaker granted Tory shadow housing secretary James Cleverly an intervention to clarify what he had said in a speech about China.
Standing at the dispatch box, Cleverly says he was misquoted by the prime minister. He says describing China in “one word” was impossible, impractical and unwise.
Here's the section of the 2023 speech he's referring to:
“I’m often asked to express that policy in a single phrase, or to sum up China itself in one word, whether ‘threat’, or ‘partner’, or ‘adversary’. And I want to start by explaining why that is impossible, impractical and – most importantly – unwise.”
During the previous administration Ministers went to KGB parties, put sons of KGB grandees in the HoL, operated parallel Foreign Policies and set up billion pound personal aggrandisement grifts, and no one seemed particularly concerned by either national security nor corruption.
We even have someone who is considered the Prime Minister in waiting who has Trump and maybe "the most impressive leader of modern times" on speed dial.
Just sayin'.
Some people need to get real and realize we’re in a new world . The UK has no choice but to suck up to China .
Petty.evasively.slippery is somewhere near...
Doctor Arroyo, Nuevo León
Has anything in recent times brought down a government, in terms of policy? There isnt really anything that could bring down a PM with the kind of majority he has except his own sense of shame and personal responsibility. And it requires a lack of both of these characteristics to get into the position in the first place.
You might get a resignation or two though from this if theres a trail somewhere. The only way it would be curtains for Starmer would be if he is personally tied to the actions and has just lied about not being.
It's a murky situation with too much complication and unless personal identifiable wrong doing comes out it will just disappear.
The phone also has a much better camera than the laptop.
It triggers me.
This is dependent on the government view - and a statement from a government witness as to that is the government position. They have refused to provide that statement with the result that the case cannot succeed (which is why their claim that the CPS made the decision to drop charges independently is specious - yes it’s true but only because of government action )
My choice would be to preserve as much as possible British independence, alongside like-minded allies, and not kowtow to China.
It might be a more difficult road in some respects, but the dignity and freedom that comes from preserving sovereignty are worth suffering for.
One would hope that we would have generally good relationships with fellow democracies with whom we share common interests. But there are also times when good relationships those who are not ideologically close to us will be in our interests.
Perish the thought!
So... does this mean that a large house on Portland Place is going to be available for coversion to residential?
AIUI he said that the Govt is not the "gatekeeper" as to the determination of whether China was/is a threat to national security but that it is up to a jury to determine that.
Interested to know PB's learned opinion of:
1 How the govt, which is in charge of international relations and national security, is not the sole arbiter on which countries are a threat to national security
2 How a jury, drawn from the general public and ignorant of security briefings, is supposed to do anything other than accept evidence on the govt's determination at the relevant time.
Above ignores the Prof's confusion at to whether OSA or NSA is the current legislation or whether the determination of threat can be retrospectively changed.
This notion that we have to declare China an enemy in green-ink on parchment under the light of a full moon otherwise we can't do anything is a load of rubbish according to Grieve.
EXCLUSIVE:
China compromised the system used to transfer highly secret data around Whitehall and obtained “vast amounts” of classified government information over a period of many years, Dominic Cummings has said
Cummings, who served as a senior adviser to Boris Johnson, said that he and the then prime minister were informed about the breach in 2020. He said he was warned at the time that disclosing some specific details of the breach would be a criminal offence
It included “Strap” material — which is the government term for the highest level of classified information.
Cummings told The Times: “The Cabinet Secretary said, ‘we have to explain something; there’s been a serious problem’, and he talked through what this was
“And it was so bizarre that — not just Boris — a few people in the room were looking around like this. ‘Am I somehow misunderstanding what he’s saying? Because it sounds f***ing crazy’.”
He added: “What I’m saying is that some Strap stuff was compromised and vast amounts of data classified as extremely secret and extremely dangerous for any foreign entity to control was compromised.
“Material from intelligence services. Material from the National Security Secretariat in the Cabinet Office. Things the government has to keep secret. If they’re not secret, then there are very, very serious implications for it.”
He said he would be willing to share what he knew about the data breach with MPs and claimed that the most senior officials in Whitehall had covered it up.
Cummings refused to say how the system had been breached.
“If the MPs want to finally have an inquiry about it, I’d be happy to talk about it,” he said. And many people know that what I’m saying is true and many people will back it up.
“And many people know that after the PM was notified about this in 2020, officials from the Cabinet Office then went round telling everybody in the meeting that it was illegal for them to discuss this with the media.”
He declined to say how the system was compromised
He said that he found the collapse of a China spy trial because the government refused to describe Beijing as a threat to national security as “ludicrous”.
“Anyone who has been read in at a high level with the intelligence services on China knows that the word threat doesn't even begin to cover it,” he said.
“The degree of penetration in espionage, in all kinds of operations, penetration of critical national infrastructure, theft of intellectual property, the whole range of things is absolutely extraordinary. A hundred times worse than it's in the public domain.
”Everybody who has been briefed on the critical analyses of these things from the intelligence services knows this is true. The idea that it is somehow a difficult semantic question of whether to define them as a threat or how much of a threat is absolutely puerile nonsense. And everybody in the heart of Whitehall knows this.
I understand that even academic oases such as Oxford now offer courses at, what one must presume, a very basic level.
There was a point today where it looked very much like he was worried he’d misstepped - the uncharacteristic “I need to double-check that point” was a bit of a panic moment for him I think. By trying to frame this as a blame the opposition piece and play the politics (clumsily) there is a risk of “misspeaking.”