This report is the sort of stuff that gives me nightmares.
As long as the dashboard Wes sees shows waiting lists going down though. That's the important thing? 📉
It's not like there's some sort of McNamara fallacy being invoked. Right?
...
right?
I don't know what the McNamara fallacy is.
I do know this. NHS screening completely failed to pick up my cancer; rather it gave me false reassurance. Had it picked it up earlier, there was every chance I could have been cured. Now I can't. I can just be treated. It's Stage 4 and there is no Stage 5. There have already been delays in getting radiologist reports & I am dependant on these to determine the treatment plus whether the cyst on my pancreas becomes cancerous.
It is hard to feel remotely optimistic about any of this. Or to have faith in the NHS. Or in those running it.
All this started being discovered by chance precisely a year ago on my birthday. I have survived a year. Now I read this.
And I fear, I genuinely fear, that I will be offered not treatment but suicide to save money because bureaucrats somewhere will have decided that my life is not worth living or saving. Please don't come back at me with "choice" and "autonomy". The only choice I have is to hope & try to live the best I can despite everything - a choice imposed on me by the state's incompetence.
The McNamara fallacy is to reduce a complex situation to a simple quantitative metric and then concentrate on changing that. The specific metric is bodycount in the Vietnam War. They tried to run the war by increasing the enemy bodycount compared to theirs, and it went horribly wrong.
(PS genuinely sorry to hear of your continuing deterioration in health. I thought due to lack of news that it had stabilized, but it seems I was wrong. My sympathies )
Hasn't it been obvious from the start? He will have to be forced out, he won't resign. Under Labour rules it is going to be very difficult to remove him.
Labour's John Major.
Major ran a rather more competent government than this one
He really didn't, until the economy turned around right at the end, by which time it was all too late.
Hasn't it been obvious from the start? He will have to be forced out, he won't resign. Under Labour rules it is going to be very difficult to remove him.
Labour's John Major.
Major ran a rather more competent government than this one
He really didn't, until the economy turned around right at the end, by which time it was all too late.
If you leave out the ERM fallout, he did rather well. However that is a heck of an omission.
This report is the sort of stuff that gives me nightmares.
As long as the dashboard Wes sees shows waiting lists going down though. That's the important thing? 📉
It's not like there's some sort of McNamara fallacy being invoked. Right?
...
right?
I don't know what the McNamara fallacy is.
I do know this. NHS screening completely failed to pick up my cancer; rather it gave me false reassurance. Had it picked it up earlier, there was every chance I could have been cured. Now I can't. I can just be treated. It's Stage 4 and there is no Stage 5. There have already been delays in getting radiologist reports & I am dependant on these to determine the treatment plus whether the cyst on my pancreas becomes cancerous.
It is hard to feel remotely optimistic about any of this. Or to have faith in the NHS. Or in those running it.
All this started being discovered by chance precisely a year ago on my birthday. I have survived a year. Now I read this.
And I fear, I genuinely fear, that I will be offered not treatment but suicide to save money because bureaucrats somewhere will have decided that my life is not worth living or saving. Please don't come back at me with "choice" and "autonomy". The only choice I have is to hope & try to live the best I can despite everything - a choice imposed on me by the state's incompetence.
I am so sorry to hear this Miss Cycle. I didn't know you were ill, nevermind you have had such a devastating diagnosis. It must be an incredibly scary time, compounded by the current "fad" for "suicide" for the sick, the terminal and the vulnerable.
My thoughts are with you and your family at this time. Please keep us informed.
"More than half of club cyclists are jumping red lights installed in a Royal Park where an elderly female pedestrian was hit and killed, analysis suggests.
Packs of riders doing laps of Regent’s Park routinely ran stop signals at a new push-button crossing built to try to prevent cyclists from using the circular route in the park as a velodrome."
"More than half of club cyclists are jumping red lights installed in a Royal Park where an elderly female pedestrian was hit and killed, analysis suggests.
Packs of riders doing laps of Regent’s Park routinely ran stop signals at a new push-button crossing built to try to prevent cyclists from using the circular route in the park as a velodrome."
I used to live on Park Square East, so am well acquainted with the cyclists in the area. And I think it's really important to distinguish betweemn two groups:
First are the regulare recreational cyclists who'll usually stop for the red lights... but if it's quiet and there's no one around, they'll jump the lights.
Second are the Strava segment warriors who don't stop for anyone and race through lights, even if there are cars or pedestrians around.
Both groups need to be discouraged from light jumping. But it is the second group who poses the danger to pedestrians, and where police enforcement should be focused.
"He appointed Mandelson to the top job in British diplomacy knowing full well that Mandelson remained friends with a CONVICTED child rapist. "
Well now. Let me introduce you to Baron Doyle of Great Barcors, formerly Matthew Doyle, Labour Party Director of Communications from 2021 onwards then Downing Street Director of Communications until March 2025 and appointed a Labour peer in December 2025.
He was a friend of Scottish Labour councillor, Sean Morton. In 2016 he was charged with the possession and distribution of indecent images of children. He was dropped as a Labour councillor and stood as an independent and Matthew Doyle, a Labour Party member, campaigned for him. Isn't this a hanging offence in Labour, campaigning for anyone other than Labour? Never mind.
Sean Morton was subsequently convicted of other child sex abuse image charges and jailed last year. Labour has been very unclear whether Doyle maintained his friendship with Morton after his 2017 conviction. Some sort of vetting investigation has been carried out but Labour refuses to reveal what it says.
Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy is another one who had a friendship with this sex offender, which continued after his conviction. As a result has said she won't be seeking re-election to Holyrood.
If appointing a friend of a convicted sex offender as ambassador is wrong, why is it ok to appoint such a person to the Lords as a legislator? And if Doyle cut his ties with Morton years ago the moment he was convicted, why doesn't Labour say so clearly?
I usually agree with you.
But it’s not clear to me that ostracism will make convicted pedophiles less likely to reoffend in future
You are missing my point. If Mandelson was unsuitable to be ambassador because of his friendship with a convicted sex offender, why is Doyle suitable to be a U.K. legislator?
The first was bad judgment by Starmer. Very well. Then so is the second. Unless the investigation has shown that Doyle did not remain friends after the conviction.
Sex offenders will do pretty much anything to get access to victims. Giving them credibility by remaining friends with them risks undermining safeguarding precisely because people will assume that if a respectable person is their friend then the person is ok. It also sends out a message that these sorts of crimes are not really that serious.
What you are saying is that sex offenders are beyond redemption. That is not correct.
"More than half of club cyclists are jumping red lights installed in a Royal Park where an elderly female pedestrian was hit and killed, analysis suggests.
Packs of riders doing laps of Regent’s Park routinely ran stop signals at a new push-button crossing built to try to prevent cyclists from using the circular route in the park as a velodrome."
I used to live on Park Square East, so am well acquainted with the cyclists in the area. And I think it's really important to distinguish betweemn two groups:
First are the regulare recreational cyclists who'll usually stop for the red lights... but if it's quiet and there's no one around, they'll jump the lights.
Second are the Strava segment warriors who don't stop for anyone and race through lights, even if there are cars or pedestrians around.
Both groups need to be discouraged from light jumping. But it is the second group who poses the danger to pedestrians, and where police enforcement should be focused.
"More than half of club cyclists are jumping red lights installed in a Royal Park where an elderly female pedestrian was hit and killed, analysis suggests.
Packs of riders doing laps of Regent’s Park routinely ran stop signals at a new push-button crossing built to try to prevent cyclists from using the circular route in the park as a velodrome."
I used to live on Park Square East, so am well acquainted with the cyclists in the area. And I think it's really important to distinguish betweemn two groups:
First are the regulare recreational cyclists who'll usually stop for the red lights... but if it's quiet and there's no one around, they'll jump the lights.
Second are the Strava segment warriors who don't stop for anyone and race through lights, even if there are cars or pedestrians around.
Both groups need to be discouraged from light jumping. But it is the second group who poses the danger to pedestrians, and where police enforcement should be focused.
"More than half of club cyclists are jumping red lights installed in a Royal Park where an elderly female pedestrian was hit and killed, analysis suggests.
Packs of riders doing laps of Regent’s Park routinely ran stop signals at a new push-button crossing built to try to prevent cyclists from using the circular route in the park as a velodrome."
I used to live on Park Square East, so am well acquainted with the cyclists in the area. And I think it's really important to distinguish betweemn two groups:
First are the regulare recreational cyclists who'll usually stop for the red lights... but if it's quiet and there's no one around, they'll jump the lights.
Second are the Strava segment warriors who don't stop for anyone and race through lights, even if there are cars or pedestrians around.
Both groups need to be discouraged from light jumping. But it is the second group who poses the danger to pedestrians, and where police enforcement should be focused.
"no-one around" = just the occasional old lady?
In the past twenty years, a handful of pedestrians have been killed by cyclists in London. Literally, it's one every ten years or so.
Now, every death is regrettable. And people who ignore traffic lights, stop signs and the like, and kill people... Well, they should face consequences.
But let's not try and make policy based around extremely rare events.
Doctor not struck off by panel over 'one-off' rape https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o A doctor found by a tribunal to have raped a young woman at his home avoided being struck off over what the panel described as a "one-off" attack. Dr Aloaye Foy-Yamah, then a consultant at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, instead had his medical licence suspended for 12 months for attacking the woman. Police investigated but did not charge Dr Foy-Yamah, but the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS) concluded on the balance of probabilities that he had raped the woman - which he denies. The panel, which emphasised the incident had not taken place at work, has been accused of "victim-blaming" and failing to properly assess Dr Foy-Yamah's risk given that it found he had raped someone. Campaign group Surviving in Scrubs, founded by two doctors who aim to highlight sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence in the healthcare workforce, told the BBC it was "appalled" by the ruling. "This belittles the traumatic experiences of survivors of sexual assault and undermines public trust in the profession," co-founder Dr Becky Cox said. "It sets a standard that perpetrators of sexual violence face minimal consequences for their actions."..
..The legally qualified chair of the panel, Angus Macpherson, wrote: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated." The GMC has appealed the tribunal's decision to the High Court and said it was "deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming narrative from the tribunal and considered the determination lacked a proper assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct". Dr Foy-Yamah, who maintains his innocence, has also appealed the tribunal's decision...
"More than half of club cyclists are jumping red lights installed in a Royal Park where an elderly female pedestrian was hit and killed, analysis suggests.
Packs of riders doing laps of Regent’s Park routinely ran stop signals at a new push-button crossing built to try to prevent cyclists from using the circular route in the park as a velodrome."
I used to live on Park Square East, so am well acquainted with the cyclists in the area. And I think it's really important to distinguish betweemn two groups:
First are the regulare recreational cyclists who'll usually stop for the red lights... but if it's quiet and there's no one around, they'll jump the lights.
Second are the Strava segment warriors who don't stop for anyone and race through lights, even if there are cars or pedestrians around.
Both groups need to be discouraged from light jumping. But it is the second group who poses the danger to pedestrians, and where police enforcement should be focused.
"no-one around" = just the occasional old lady?
In the past twenty years, a handful of pedestrians have been killed by cyclists in London. Literally, it's one every ten years or so.
Now, every death is regrettable. And people who ignore traffic lights, stop signs and the like, and kill people... Well, they should face consequences.
But let's not try and make policy based around extremely rare events.
It's not the events that are rare but the consequences. Should we similarly turn a blind eye to drunk driving provided no-one is killed?
Doctor not struck off by panel over 'one-off' rape https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o A doctor found by a tribunal to have raped a young woman at his home avoided being struck off over what the panel described as a "one-off" attack. Dr Aloaye Foy-Yamah, then a consultant at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, instead had his medical licence suspended for 12 months for attacking the woman. Police investigated but did not charge Dr Foy-Yamah, but the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS) concluded on the balance of probabilities that he had raped the woman - which he denies. The panel, which emphasised the incident had not taken place at work, has been accused of "victim-blaming" and failing to properly assess Dr Foy-Yamah's risk given that it found he had raped someone. Campaign group Surviving in Scrubs, founded by two doctors who aim to highlight sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence in the healthcare workforce, told the BBC it was "appalled" by the ruling. "This belittles the traumatic experiences of survivors of sexual assault and undermines public trust in the profession," co-founder Dr Becky Cox said. "It sets a standard that perpetrators of sexual violence face minimal consequences for their actions."..
..The legally qualified chair of the panel, Angus Macpherson, wrote: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated." The GMC has appealed the tribunal's decision to the High Court and said it was "deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming narrative from the tribunal and considered the determination lacked a proper assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct". Dr Foy-Yamah, who maintains his innocence, has also appealed the tribunal's decision...
Isn't the key bit there that the police investigated but did not charge? Hence hr does not have a criminal conviction?
"He appointed Mandelson to the top job in British diplomacy knowing full well that Mandelson remained friends with a CONVICTED child rapist. "
Well now. Let me introduce you to Baron Doyle of Great Barcors, formerly Matthew Doyle, Labour Party Director of Communications from 2021 onwards then Downing Street Director of Communications until March 2025 and appointed a Labour peer in December 2025.
He was a friend of Scottish Labour councillor, Sean Morton. In 2016 he was charged with the possession and distribution of indecent images of children. He was dropped as a Labour councillor and stood as an independent and Matthew Doyle, a Labour Party member, campaigned for him. Isn't this a hanging offence in Labour, campaigning for anyone other than Labour? Never mind.
Sean Morton was subsequently convicted of other child sex abuse image charges and jailed last year. Labour has been very unclear whether Doyle maintained his friendship with Morton after his 2017 conviction. Some sort of vetting investigation has been carried out but Labour refuses to reveal what it says.
Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy is another one who had a friendship with this sex offender, which continued after his conviction. As a result has said she won't be seeking re-election to Holyrood.
If appointing a friend of a convicted sex offender as ambassador is wrong, why is it ok to appoint such a person to the Lords as a legislator? And if Doyle cut his ties with Morton years ago the moment he was convicted, why doesn't Labour say so clearly?
I usually agree with you.
But it’s not clear to me that ostracism will make convicted pedophiles less likely to reoffend in future
You are missing my point. If Mandelson was unsuitable to be ambassador because of his friendship with a convicted sex offender, why is Doyle suitable to be a U.K. legislator?
The first was bad judgment by Starmer. Very well. Then so is the second. Unless the investigation has shown that Doyle did not remain friends after the conviction.
Sex offenders will do pretty much anything to get access to victims. Giving them credibility by remaining friends with them risks undermining safeguarding precisely because people will assume that if a respectable person is their friend then the person is ok. It also sends out a message that these sorts of crimes are not really that serious.
What you are saying is that sex offenders are beyond redemption. That is not correct.
There are sex offenders or people with links to sex offender very likely sat as sleepers in all / almost all Parties. Libel laws prevent naming them or making comments that may make the names clear but they aren't hard to find in any of the main UK Parties.?
What is the solution, a purge, an amnesty.?
What exactly is the definition in terms of being an MP of a sexual affence, major / minor, is there no such thing as minor as an offence is an offence?
It is a very dark and very deep hole.
The best immediate solution is to take party politics out of it, to de-weaponise it politically and to also acknowledge that whilst sex offnces against women are heinous, sex offences against men are equally heinous, as are offences against any other gender.
Doctor not struck off by panel over 'one-off' rape https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o A doctor found by a tribunal to have raped a young woman at his home avoided being struck off over what the panel described as a "one-off" attack. Dr Aloaye Foy-Yamah, then a consultant at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, instead had his medical licence suspended for 12 months for attacking the woman. Police investigated but did not charge Dr Foy-Yamah, but the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS) concluded on the balance of probabilities that he had raped the woman - which he denies. The panel, which emphasised the incident had not taken place at work, has been accused of "victim-blaming" and failing to properly assess Dr Foy-Yamah's risk given that it found he had raped someone. Campaign group Surviving in Scrubs, founded by two doctors who aim to highlight sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence in the healthcare workforce, told the BBC it was "appalled" by the ruling. "This belittles the traumatic experiences of survivors of sexual assault and undermines public trust in the profession," co-founder Dr Becky Cox said. "It sets a standard that perpetrators of sexual violence face minimal consequences for their actions."..
..The legally qualified chair of the panel, Angus Macpherson, wrote: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated." The GMC has appealed the tribunal's decision to the High Court and said it was "deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming narrative from the tribunal and considered the determination lacked a proper assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct". Dr Foy-Yamah, who maintains his innocence, has also appealed the tribunal's decision...
Isn't the key bit there that the police investigated but did not charge? Hence hr does not have a criminal conviction?
The key bit is that on the balance of probabilities, they found he was a rapist.
That is the required burden of proof in a civil matter. What was before the panel was a civil matter.
Thi is a truly shocking abdication of responsibility. Lord knows what Cyclefree will say. But I can guess.
Doctor not struck off by panel over 'one-off' rape https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o A doctor found by a tribunal to have raped a young woman at his home avoided being struck off over what the panel described as a "one-off" attack. Dr Aloaye Foy-Yamah, then a consultant at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, instead had his medical licence suspended for 12 months for attacking the woman. Police investigated but did not charge Dr Foy-Yamah, but the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS) concluded on the balance of probabilities that he had raped the woman - which he denies. The panel, which emphasised the incident had not taken place at work, has been accused of "victim-blaming" and failing to properly assess Dr Foy-Yamah's risk given that it found he had raped someone. Campaign group Surviving in Scrubs, founded by two doctors who aim to highlight sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence in the healthcare workforce, told the BBC it was "appalled" by the ruling. "This belittles the traumatic experiences of survivors of sexual assault and undermines public trust in the profession," co-founder Dr Becky Cox said. "It sets a standard that perpetrators of sexual violence face minimal consequences for their actions."..
..The legally qualified chair of the panel, Angus Macpherson, wrote: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated." The GMC has appealed the tribunal's decision to the High Court and said it was "deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming narrative from the tribunal and considered the determination lacked a proper assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct". Dr Foy-Yamah, who maintains his innocence, has also appealed the tribunal's decision...
Isn't the key bit there that the police investigated but did not charge? Hence hr does not have a criminal conviction?
If I have understood this correctly, the Tribunal does not have to apply the criminal standard of proof, in order to establish professional misconduct.
The Tribunal has found that the respondent committed rape. As such, it is very hard to see what ground there can be for not striking him off.
This report is the sort of stuff that gives me nightmares.
As long as the dashboard Wes sees shows waiting lists going down though. That's the important thing? 📉
It's not like there's some sort of McNamara fallacy being invoked. Right?
...
right?
I don't know what the McNamara fallacy is.
I do know this. NHS screening completely failed to pick up my cancer; rather it gave me false reassurance. Had it picked it up earlier, there was every chance I could have been cured. Now I can't. I can just be treated. It's Stage 4 and there is no Stage 5. There have already been delays in getting radiologist reports & I am dependant on these to determine the treatment plus whether the cyst on my pancreas becomes cancerous.
It is hard to feel remotely optimistic about any of this. Or to have faith in the NHS. Or in those running it.
All this started being discovered by chance precisely a year ago on my birthday. I have survived a year. Now I read this.
And I fear, I genuinely fear, that I will be offered not treatment but suicide to save money because bureaucrats somewhere will have decided that my life is not worth living or saving. Please don't come back at me with "choice" and "autonomy". The only choice I have is to hope & try to live the best I can despite everything - a choice imposed on me by the state's incompetence.
"More than half of club cyclists are jumping red lights installed in a Royal Park where an elderly female pedestrian was hit and killed, analysis suggests.
Packs of riders doing laps of Regent’s Park routinely ran stop signals at a new push-button crossing built to try to prevent cyclists from using the circular route in the park as a velodrome."
I used to live on Park Square East, so am well acquainted with the cyclists in the area. And I think it's really important to distinguish betweemn two groups:
First are the regulare recreational cyclists who'll usually stop for the red lights... but if it's quiet and there's no one around, they'll jump the lights.
Second are the Strava segment warriors who don't stop for anyone and race through lights, even if there are cars or pedestrians around.
Both groups need to be discouraged from light jumping. But it is the second group who poses the danger to pedestrians, and where police enforcement should be focused.
"no-one around" = just the occasional old lady?
In the past twenty years, a handful of pedestrians have been killed by cyclists in London. Literally, it's one every ten years or so.
Now, every death is regrettable. And people who ignore traffic lights, stop signs and the like, and kill people... Well, they should face consequences.
But let's not try and make policy based around extremely rare events.
It's not the events that are rare but the consequences. Should we similarly turn a blind eye to drunk driving provided no-one is killed?
If you cycle in a reckless manner, and that manner causes a death, then you should be treated in exactly the same way that a drunk driver who causes a death should be treated
At the same time, we wouldn't put up a raft of new traffic lights to stop one drunk driving death every 20 years.
This report is the sort of stuff that gives me nightmares.
As long as the dashboard Wes sees shows waiting lists going down though. That's the important thing? 📉
It's not like there's some sort of McNamara fallacy being invoked. Right?
...
right?
I don't know what the McNamara fallacy is.
I do know this. NHS screening completely failed to pick up my cancer; rather it gave me false reassurance. Had it picked it up earlier, there was every chance I could have been cured. Now I can't. I can just be treated. It's Stage 4 and there is no Stage 5. There have already been delays in getting radiologist reports & I am dependant on these to determine the treatment plus whether the cyst on my pancreas becomes cancerous.
It is hard to feel remotely optimistic about any of this. Or to have faith in the NHS. Or in those running it.
All this started being discovered by chance precisely a year ago on my birthday. I have survived a year. Now I read this.
And I fear, I genuinely fear, that I will be offered not treatment but suicide to save money because bureaucrats somewhere will have decided that my life is not worth living or saving. Please don't come back at me with "choice" and "autonomy". The only choice I have is to hope & try to live the best I can despite everything - a choice imposed on me by the state's incompetence.
For the Gorton and Denton bet on the Greens, I hope he holds off a little bit. In fact, a lot longer, the thought of him being replaced by Rayner is not a happy one.
Given the restrictions that remain, I'm not sure why France would feel the need to block it.
UK companies can participate if there's no EU or EFTA alternative, or if delivery time is shorter.
The UK must also pay a fee into the loan's interest costs, estimated at €20B over seven years
Can anyone advise - that €20B Euro looks to be way over for 7 years interest on a UK share of €90B borrowed for 7 years? I would expect it to be "pro-rata or we walk away", as we did before.
Does anyone have the calculation? To me gut feel, without running the calculations, the share of interest should be closer to €5B . (10 billion borrowed for 7 years at 5%.)
(Update: looking at actual articles not twatter, I'd say that the UK will be paying a share of a total bill of €20B for the entire scheme.)
Given the restrictions that remain, I'm not sure why France would feel the need to block it.
UK companies can participate if there's no EU or EFTA alternative, or if delivery time is shorter.
The UK must also pay a fee into the loan's interest costs, estimated at €20B over seven years
Can anyone advise - that €20B Euro looks to be way over for 7 years interest on a UK share of €90B borrowed for 7 years? I would expect it to be "pro-rata or we walk away".
Does anyone have the calculation? To me gut feel, without running the calculations, the share of interest should be closer to €5B . (10 billion borrowed for 7 years at 5%.)
I think that your maths are spot on and indeed I hnk that they concur with what the Germans would agree too and most other participants.
A more logical solution would surely be to have a smaller set fee like £5bn and then some kind of small commission deal on agreed deals like 10% of the deal fee.
Why would he resign? The Parliamentary party doesn’t really have a challenger to him and it’s pretty much impossible to kick out a Labour leader against his will, especially when in government. In his mind the Mandelson debacle is fixed by McSweeney resigning, so it’s onwards and upwards from here.
The loss of the by-election at the end of the month might focus a few more minds though. Labour could conceivably come in 3rd behind Reform and Green, then it’s only a couple of months until a shellacking at the locals.
Doctor not struck off by panel over 'one-off' rape https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o A doctor found by a tribunal to have raped a young woman at his home avoided being struck off over what the panel described as a "one-off" attack. Dr Aloaye Foy-Yamah, then a consultant at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, instead had his medical licence suspended for 12 months for attacking the woman. Police investigated but did not charge Dr Foy-Yamah, but the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS) concluded on the balance of probabilities that he had raped the woman - which he denies. The panel, which emphasised the incident had not taken place at work, has been accused of "victim-blaming" and failing to properly assess Dr Foy-Yamah's risk given that it found he had raped someone. Campaign group Surviving in Scrubs, founded by two doctors who aim to highlight sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence in the healthcare workforce, told the BBC it was "appalled" by the ruling. "This belittles the traumatic experiences of survivors of sexual assault and undermines public trust in the profession," co-founder Dr Becky Cox said. "It sets a standard that perpetrators of sexual violence face minimal consequences for their actions."..
..The legally qualified chair of the panel, Angus Macpherson, wrote: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated." The GMC has appealed the tribunal's decision to the High Court and said it was "deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming narrative from the tribunal and considered the determination lacked a proper assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct". Dr Foy-Yamah, who maintains his innocence, has also appealed the tribunal's decision...
Isn't the key bit there that the police investigated but did not charge? Hence hr does not have a criminal conviction?
The tribunal found, on a balance of probabilities, that he's a rapist. Do they have to determine facts beyond a reasonable doubt to strike off a doctor ?
Given the restrictions that remain, I'm not sure why France would feel the need to block it.
UK companies can participate if there's no EU or EFTA alternative, or if delivery time is shorter.
The UK must also pay a fee into the loan's interest costs, estimated at €20B over seven years
Can anyone advise - that €20B Euro looks to be way over for 7 years interest on a UK share of €90B borrowed for 7 years? I would expect it to be "pro-rata or we walk away", as we did before.
Does anyone have the calculation? To me gut feel, without running the calculations, the share of interest should be closer to €5B . (10 billion borrowed for 7 years at 5%.)
(Update: looking at actual articles not twatter, I'd say that the UK will be paying a share of a total bill of €20B for the entire scheme.)
I think the problem is lazy wording. This can be read both ways. 20bn can be either the the British share, or the over all loan's interest costs:
Tymofiy Mylovanov @Mylovanov UK companies can participate if there's no EU or EFTA alternative, or if delivery time is shorter.
He will met the Parliamentary Party this evening and then he is scheduled to meet female MP's on Wednesday after PMQ.
He will clearly be seeking to convince enough to back him and he is not by any means stupid and he clearly does have the ability to read the room, and he may well read the room a lot better without MMc by his side.
The simple maths are this
There is a hardcore of 20 - 25 who will never support him, the rent a gob gobshites who quite frankly should have been kicked off the Jeremy and Zara freak show
There is a bigger core who do support him and want to support him that probably number 125 or so.
It is the 250 core that are key to this, how they break is fundamental to his future and I have a gut feel that they are like a big oil tanker, they will turn quite slowly but once they build a head of steam they are unstoppable.
I suggest is probably 60:40 he survives a week, after which his fate will be sealed after the elections in May.
If it were a pure closed dppr no words spoken outside of this room sealed chamber, I suggest he might offer to stay on to May and then stand aside but in the modern era he simply cannot do that because it would be headline news in seconds.
The Labour leadership process is quite elongated, at least individual Union Members don't have votes or there are no block votes any more and only bona fide Labour Party Members have votes, but I think they would be very wise to limit votes to those who were members on 1 February, to avoid a repeat of when Corbyn sneaked in.
Given the restrictions that remain, I'm not sure why France would feel the need to block it.
UK companies can participate if there's no EU or EFTA alternative, or if delivery time is shorter.
The UK must also pay a fee into the loan's interest costs, estimated at €20B over seven years
Can anyone advise - that €20B Euro looks to be way over for 7 years interest on a UK share of €90B borrowed for 7 years? I would expect it to be "pro-rata or we walk away", as we did before.
Does anyone have the calculation? To me gut feel, without running the calculations, the share of interest should be closer to €5B . (10 billion borrowed for 7 years at 5%.)
(Update: looking at actual articles not twatter, I'd say that the UK will be paying a share of a total bill of €20B for the entire scheme.)
€20bn is the total interest costs on the loan. EU borrowing costs are not 5%.
..To ensure the most favourable loan terms and to manage Ukraine’s debt sustainability, the interest cost of the loan is planned to be covered by the EU budget...
If we're participating, clearly we should contribute to those costs.
We've yet to see full details, but I suspect this is a good deal for the UK. Which is why France opposed it.
Given the restrictions that remain, I'm not sure why France would feel the need to block it.
UK companies can participate if there's no EU or EFTA alternative, or if delivery time is shorter.
The UK must also pay a fee into the loan's interest costs, estimated at €20B over seven years
Can anyone advise - that €20B Euro looks to be way over for 7 years interest on a UK share of €90B borrowed for 7 years? I would expect it to be "pro-rata or we walk away".
Does anyone have the calculation? To me gut feel, without running the calculations, the share of interest should be closer to €5B . (10 billion borrowed for 7 years at 5%.)
I think that your maths are spot on and indeed I hnk that they concur with what the Germans would agree too and most other participants.
A more logical solution would surely be to have a smaller set fee like £5bn and then some kind of small commission deal on agreed deals like 10% of the deal fee.
This report is the sort of stuff that gives me nightmares.
As long as the dashboard Wes sees shows waiting lists going down though. That's the important thing? 📉
It's not like there's some sort of McNamara fallacy being invoked. Right?
...
right?
I don't know what the McNamara fallacy is.
I do know this. NHS screening completely failed to pick up my cancer; rather it gave me false reassurance. Had it picked it up earlier, there was every chance I could have been cured. Now I can't. I can just be treated. It's Stage 4 and there is no Stage 5. There have already been delays in getting radiologist reports & I am dependant on these to determine the treatment plus whether the cyst on my pancreas becomes cancerous.
It is hard to feel remotely optimistic about any of this. Or to have faith in the NHS. Or in those running it.
All this started being discovered by chance precisely a year ago on my birthday. I have survived a year. Now I read this.
And I fear, I genuinely fear, that I will be offered not treatment but suicide to save money because bureaucrats somewhere will have decided that my life is not worth living or saving. Please don't come back at me with "choice" and "autonomy". The only choice I have is to hope & try to live the best I can despite everything - a choice imposed on me by the state's incompetence.
"More than half of club cyclists are jumping red lights installed in a Royal Park where an elderly female pedestrian was hit and killed, analysis suggests.
Packs of riders doing laps of Regent’s Park routinely ran stop signals at a new push-button crossing built to try to prevent cyclists from using the circular route in the park as a velodrome."
"More than half of club cyclists are jumping red lights installed in a Royal Park where an elderly female pedestrian was hit and killed, analysis suggests.
Packs of riders doing laps of Regent’s Park routinely ran stop signals at a new push-button crossing built to try to prevent cyclists from using the circular route in the park as a velodrome."
I used to live on Park Square East, so am well acquainted with the cyclists in the area. And I think it's really important to distinguish betweemn two groups:
First are the regulare recreational cyclists who'll usually stop for the red lights... but if it's quiet and there's no one around, they'll jump the lights.
Second are the Strava segment warriors who don't stop for anyone and race through lights, even if there are cars or pedestrians around.
Both groups need to be discouraged from light jumping. But it is the second group who poses the danger to pedestrians, and where police enforcement should be focused.
"no-one around" = just the occasional old lady?
In the past twenty years, a handful of pedestrians have been killed by cyclists in London. Literally, it's one every ten years or so.
Now, every death is regrettable. And people who ignore traffic lights, stop signs and the like, and kill people... Well, they should face consequences.
But let's not try and make policy based around extremely rare events.
"More than half of club cyclists are jumping red lights installed in a Royal Park where an elderly female pedestrian was hit and killed, analysis suggests.
Packs of riders doing laps of Regent’s Park routinely ran stop signals at a new push-button crossing built to try to prevent cyclists from using the circular route in the park as a velodrome."
30% of Gorton & Denton is single person households. Must be a few votes in that group.
Leaving aside the party and the candidate who said this, there is a financial logic to it: those who don't have kids will be relying to those who do, and their children, to pay the taxes to support them in their old age. The alternative is heavy immigration.
God knows how you enforce and implement it though.
I do know this. NHS screening completely failed to pick up my cancer; rather it gave me false reassurance. Had it picked it up earlier, there was every chance I could have been cured. Now I can't. I can just be treated. It's Stage 4 and there is no Stage 5. There have already been delays in getting radiologist reports & I am dependant on these to determine the treatment plus whether the cyst on my pancreas becomes cancerous. .
I’m so very sorry to see.this. Every good wish for the time to come.
I doubt there has been a more depressing time since WW2
We have a government in crisis led by a leader who has no future though may hang on just continuing the daily pyscho drama
We await enormous volumns of e mails and whats app messages during Mandelson's time as ambassador with unknown consquences for other labour mps and advisors and unrest with politics by the public
The real danger is the public voting for Reform or the Greens in a mass protest vote and electing extreme right or left mps wholly unsuitable for public office
More Epstein files will be realeased as we watch each breaking news fearing what next
Indeed we could see untold problems with Trump over revelations in our dealing through Mandelson
I would suggest labour need to lance the boil now and demand Starmer resigns and install a temporary leader to stabiise the party with either John Healey or Hilary Benn being a good call
Goodness knows how the bond markets will react and letting things drift is not an option
I had hopes that Starmer would do as he said before the election to promote integrity and accountability into our politics but here we are just over 18 months later with the most unpopular PM in recent hiistory
This is not about point scoring but a deep desire for labour to steady the ship for all our sakes as anything else is unthinkable
May wise minds in labour led by many of the women who are so aggrieved prevail
Doctor not struck off by panel over 'one-off' rape https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o A doctor found by a tribunal to have raped a young woman at his home avoided being struck off over what the panel described as a "one-off" attack. Dr Aloaye Foy-Yamah, then a consultant at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, instead had his medical licence suspended for 12 months for attacking the woman. Police investigated but did not charge Dr Foy-Yamah, but the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS) concluded on the balance of probabilities that he had raped the woman - which he denies. The panel, which emphasised the incident had not taken place at work, has been accused of "victim-blaming" and failing to properly assess Dr Foy-Yamah's risk given that it found he had raped someone. Campaign group Surviving in Scrubs, founded by two doctors who aim to highlight sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence in the healthcare workforce, told the BBC it was "appalled" by the ruling. "This belittles the traumatic experiences of survivors of sexual assault and undermines public trust in the profession," co-founder Dr Becky Cox said. "It sets a standard that perpetrators of sexual violence face minimal consequences for their actions."..
..The legally qualified chair of the panel, Angus Macpherson, wrote: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated." The GMC has appealed the tribunal's decision to the High Court and said it was "deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming narrative from the tribunal and considered the determination lacked a proper assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct". Dr Foy-Yamah, who maintains his innocence, has also appealed the tribunal's decision...
Isn't the key bit there that the police investigated but did not charge? Hence hr does not have a criminal conviction?
If I have understood this correctly, the Tribunal does not have to apply the criminal standard of proof, in order to establish professional misconduct.
The Tribunal has found that the respondent committed rape. As such, it is very hard to see what ground there can be for not striking him off.
They gave their reason: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated."
That is utterly incredible.
Rape cannot be dismissed as a "one-off event", and it's quite absurd to find "it will not be repeated". How on earth do they know that ? At best you could say it's likely or unlikely. The chair is "legally qualified"; he should know that is a nonsensical judgment.
And how can it not involve patient safety concerns just because the victim wasn't a patient ? Equally absurd.
30% of Gorton & Denton is single person households. Must be a few votes in that group.
Leaving aside the party and the candidate who said this, there is a financial logic to it: those who don't have kids will be relying to those who do, and their children, to pay the taxes to support them in their old age. The alternative is heavy immigration.
God knows how you enforce and implement it though.
It's as crazy a policy as the 2-child limit which effectively punished the child and not the parents . You could, in acknowledging such a policy, name the child 'Tax Reduction'.
In the same way politicians are useless at spotting business winners, they ought not to be able to direct social engineering e.g. assisted dying. We need less politicians and less laws until they can actually sort out and implement the extensive body of law we already have.
Doctor not struck off by panel over 'one-off' rape https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o A doctor found by a tribunal to have raped a young woman at his home avoided being struck off over what the panel described as a "one-off" attack. Dr Aloaye Foy-Yamah, then a consultant at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, instead had his medical licence suspended for 12 months for attacking the woman. Police investigated but did not charge Dr Foy-Yamah, but the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS) concluded on the balance of probabilities that he had raped the woman - which he denies. The panel, which emphasised the incident had not taken place at work, has been accused of "victim-blaming" and failing to properly assess Dr Foy-Yamah's risk given that it found he had raped someone. Campaign group Surviving in Scrubs, founded by two doctors who aim to highlight sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence in the healthcare workforce, told the BBC it was "appalled" by the ruling. "This belittles the traumatic experiences of survivors of sexual assault and undermines public trust in the profession," co-founder Dr Becky Cox said. "It sets a standard that perpetrators of sexual violence face minimal consequences for their actions."..
..The legally qualified chair of the panel, Angus Macpherson, wrote: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated." The GMC has appealed the tribunal's decision to the High Court and said it was "deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming narrative from the tribunal and considered the determination lacked a proper assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct". Dr Foy-Yamah, who maintains his innocence, has also appealed the tribunal's decision...
Isn't the key bit there that the police investigated but did not charge? Hence hr does not have a criminal conviction?
If I have understood this correctly, the Tribunal does not have to apply the criminal standard of proof, in order to establish professional misconduct.
The Tribunal has found that the respondent committed rape. As such, it is very hard to see what ground there can be for not striking him off.
They gave their reason: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated."
That is utterly incredible.
Rape cannot be dismissed as a "one-off event", and it's quite absurd to find "it will not be repeated". How on earth do they know that ? At best you could say it's likely or unlikely. The chair is "legally qualified"; he should know that is a nonsensical judgment.
And how can it not involve patient safety concerns just because the victim wasn't a patient ? Equally absurd.
My wife and I know a woman who was abused as a child.
Her view was that we all don't know the half of sexual abuse, and it's rife: including amongst judges, doctors and even law enforcement.
Doctor not struck off by panel over 'one-off' rape https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o A doctor found by a tribunal to have raped a young woman at his home avoided being struck off over what the panel described as a "one-off" attack. Dr Aloaye Foy-Yamah, then a consultant at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, instead had his medical licence suspended for 12 months for attacking the woman. Police investigated but did not charge Dr Foy-Yamah, but the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS) concluded on the balance of probabilities that he had raped the woman - which he denies. The panel, which emphasised the incident had not taken place at work, has been accused of "victim-blaming" and failing to properly assess Dr Foy-Yamah's risk given that it found he had raped someone. Campaign group Surviving in Scrubs, founded by two doctors who aim to highlight sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence in the healthcare workforce, told the BBC it was "appalled" by the ruling. "This belittles the traumatic experiences of survivors of sexual assault and undermines public trust in the profession," co-founder Dr Becky Cox said. "It sets a standard that perpetrators of sexual violence face minimal consequences for their actions."..
..The legally qualified chair of the panel, Angus Macpherson, wrote: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated." The GMC has appealed the tribunal's decision to the High Court and said it was "deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming narrative from the tribunal and considered the determination lacked a proper assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct". Dr Foy-Yamah, who maintains his innocence, has also appealed the tribunal's decision...
Isn't the key bit there that the police investigated but did not charge? Hence hr does not have a criminal conviction?
If I have understood this correctly, the Tribunal does not have to apply the criminal standard of proof, in order to establish professional misconduct.
The Tribunal has found that the respondent committed rape. As such, it is very hard to see what ground there can be for not striking him off.
They gave their reason: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated."
That is utterly incredible.
Rape cannot be dismissed as a "one-off event", and it's quite absurd to find "it will not be repeated". How on earth do they know that ? At best you could say it's likely or unlikely. The chair is "legally qualified"; he should know that is a nonsensical judgment.
And how can it not involve patient safety concerns just because the victim wasn't a patient ? Equally absurd.
I should have checked the date of the story - last year. Apologies. The High Court has apparently already heard the doctor's and GMC's appeals.
30% of Gorton & Denton is single person households. Must be a few votes in that group.
Leaving aside the party and the candidate who said this, there is a financial logic to it: those who don't have kids will be relying to those who do, and their children, to pay the taxes to support them in their old age. The alternative is heavy immigration.
God knows how you enforce and implement it though.
It's as crazy a policy as the 2-child limit which effectively punished the child and not the parents . You could, in acknowledging such a policy, name the child 'Tax Reduction'.
In the same way politicians are useless at spotting business winners, they ought not to be able to direct social engineering e.g. assisted dying. We need less politicians and less laws until they can actually sort out and implement the extensive body of law we already have.
I don't think it's crazy.
If we didn't have child benefit right now, and someone proposed to introduce it, we'd hear similar criticism that it was unfairly taxing hardworking people who couldn't have children to give a handout to those who'd chosen to.
And politicians socially engineer all the time. It's literally what they do.
Doctor not struck off by panel over 'one-off' rape https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o A doctor found by a tribunal to have raped a young woman at his home avoided being struck off over what the panel described as a "one-off" attack. Dr Aloaye Foy-Yamah, then a consultant at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, instead had his medical licence suspended for 12 months for attacking the woman. Police investigated but did not charge Dr Foy-Yamah, but the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS) concluded on the balance of probabilities that he had raped the woman - which he denies. The panel, which emphasised the incident had not taken place at work, has been accused of "victim-blaming" and failing to properly assess Dr Foy-Yamah's risk given that it found he had raped someone. Campaign group Surviving in Scrubs, founded by two doctors who aim to highlight sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence in the healthcare workforce, told the BBC it was "appalled" by the ruling. "This belittles the traumatic experiences of survivors of sexual assault and undermines public trust in the profession," co-founder Dr Becky Cox said. "It sets a standard that perpetrators of sexual violence face minimal consequences for their actions."..
..The legally qualified chair of the panel, Angus Macpherson, wrote: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated." The GMC has appealed the tribunal's decision to the High Court and said it was "deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming narrative from the tribunal and considered the determination lacked a proper assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct". Dr Foy-Yamah, who maintains his innocence, has also appealed the tribunal's decision...
Isn't the key bit there that the police investigated but did not charge? Hence hr does not have a criminal conviction?
If I have understood this correctly, the Tribunal does not have to apply the criminal standard of proof, in order to establish professional misconduct.
The Tribunal has found that the respondent committed rape. As such, it is very hard to see what ground there can be for not striking him off.
They gave their reason: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated."
That is utterly incredible.
Rape cannot be dismissed as a "one-off event", and it's quite absurd to find "it will not be repeated". How on earth do they know that ? At best you could say it's likely or unlikely. The chair is "legally qualified"; he should know that is a nonsensical judgment.
And how can it not involve patient safety concerns just because the victim wasn't a patient ? Equally absurd.
My wife and I know a woman who was abused as a child.
Her view was that we all don't know the half of sexual abuse, and it's rife: including amongst judges, doctors and even law enforcement.
Doctors; Judges; Law Enforcement. I can't imagine what organisation they all tend to link to?
"He appointed Mandelson to the top job in British diplomacy knowing full well that Mandelson remained friends with a CONVICTED child rapist. "
Well now. Let me introduce you to Baron Doyle of Great Barcors, formerly Matthew Doyle, Labour Party Director of Communications from 2021 onwards then Downing Street Director of Communications until March 2025 and appointed a Labour peer in December 2025.
He was a friend of Scottish Labour councillor, Sean Morton. In 2016 he was charged with the possession and distribution of indecent images of children. He was dropped as a Labour councillor and stood as an independent and Matthew Doyle, a Labour Party member, campaigned for him. Isn't this a hanging offence in Labour, campaigning for anyone other than Labour? Never mind.
Sean Morton was subsequently convicted of other child sex abuse image charges and jailed last year. Labour has been very unclear whether Doyle maintained his friendship with Morton after his 2017 conviction. Some sort of vetting investigation has been carried out but Labour refuses to reveal what it says.
Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy is another one who had a friendship with this sex offender, which continued after his conviction. As a result has said she won't be seeking re-election to Holyrood.
If appointing a friend of a convicted sex offender as ambassador is wrong, why is it ok to appoint such a person to the Lords as a legislator? And if Doyle cut his ties with Morton years ago the moment he was convicted, why doesn't Labour say so clearly?
I usually agree with you.
But it’s not clear to me that ostracism will make convicted pedophiles less likely to reoffend in future
You are missing my point. If Mandelson was unsuitable to be ambassador because of his friendship with a convicted sex offender, why is Doyle suitable to be a U.K. legislator?
The first was bad judgment by Starmer. Very well. Then so is the second. Unless the investigation has shown that Doyle did not remain friends after the conviction.
Sex offenders will do pretty much anything to get access to victims. Giving them credibility by remaining friends with them risks undermining safeguarding precisely because people will assume that if a respectable person is their friend then the person is ok. It also sends out a message that these sorts of crimes are not really that serious.
What you are saying is that sex offenders are beyond redemption. That is not correct.
There are sex offenders or people with links to sex offender very likely sat as sleepers in all / almost all Parties. Libel laws prevent naming them or making comments that may make the names clear but they aren't hard to find in any of the main UK Parties.?
What is the solution, a purge, an amnesty.?
What exactly is the definition in terms of being an MP of a sexual affence, major / minor, is there no such thing as minor as an offence is an offence?
It is a very dark and very deep hole.
The best immediate solution is to take party politics out of it, to de-weaponise it politically and to also acknowledge that whilst sex offnces against women are heinous, sex offences against men are equally heinous, as are offences against any other gender.
So as this is an issue currently blighting labour then party politics should be taken out of it but foreign influence in our politics shouldn’t, as it is a stick to beat opponents with. You continually, in that oh so funny way you misspell her name, go on about Priti Patel and Israel yet New Labour was very much in bed with Israel and, for that matter, Russia.
Issues like both of these transcend party politics and affect all major parties and need dealing with overall rather than for petty political advantage. Same with the Covid enquiry.
Doctor not struck off by panel over 'one-off' rape https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o A doctor found by a tribunal to have raped a young woman at his home avoided being struck off over what the panel described as a "one-off" attack. Dr Aloaye Foy-Yamah, then a consultant at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, instead had his medical licence suspended for 12 months for attacking the woman. Police investigated but did not charge Dr Foy-Yamah, but the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS) concluded on the balance of probabilities that he had raped the woman - which he denies. The panel, which emphasised the incident had not taken place at work, has been accused of "victim-blaming" and failing to properly assess Dr Foy-Yamah's risk given that it found he had raped someone. Campaign group Surviving in Scrubs, founded by two doctors who aim to highlight sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence in the healthcare workforce, told the BBC it was "appalled" by the ruling. "This belittles the traumatic experiences of survivors of sexual assault and undermines public trust in the profession," co-founder Dr Becky Cox said. "It sets a standard that perpetrators of sexual violence face minimal consequences for their actions."..
..The legally qualified chair of the panel, Angus Macpherson, wrote: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated." The GMC has appealed the tribunal's decision to the High Court and said it was "deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming narrative from the tribunal and considered the determination lacked a proper assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct". Dr Foy-Yamah, who maintains his innocence, has also appealed the tribunal's decision...
Isn't the key bit there that the police investigated but did not charge? Hence hr does not have a criminal conviction?
If I have understood this correctly, the Tribunal does not have to apply the criminal standard of proof, in order to establish professional misconduct.
The Tribunal has found that the respondent committed rape. As such, it is very hard to see what ground there can be for not striking him off.
They gave their reason: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated."
That is utterly incredible.
Rape cannot be dismissed as a "one-off event", and it's quite absurd to find "it will not be repeated". How on earth do they know that ? At best you could say it's likely or unlikely. The chair is "legally qualified"; he should know that is a nonsensical judgment.
And how can it not involve patient safety concerns just because the victim wasn't a patient ? Equally absurd.
My wife and I know a woman who was abused as a child.
Her view was that we all don't know the half of sexual abuse, and it's rife: including amongst judges, doctors and even law enforcement.
Probably yes.
One of the risks of the Epstein files is that we normies reassure ourselves that evil abuse of power is only done by people with freakish amounts of the stuff- much as "rich" means people richer than we (individually) can imagine being.
That's very largely not the case. But how to balance will-to-power as a driver of human advancement and human suffering is another of those problems that it would be good to solve, but might be impossible.
Doctor not struck off by panel over 'one-off' rape https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o A doctor found by a tribunal to have raped a young woman at his home avoided being struck off over what the panel described as a "one-off" attack. Dr Aloaye Foy-Yamah, then a consultant at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, instead had his medical licence suspended for 12 months for attacking the woman. Police investigated but did not charge Dr Foy-Yamah, but the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS) concluded on the balance of probabilities that he had raped the woman - which he denies. The panel, which emphasised the incident had not taken place at work, has been accused of "victim-blaming" and failing to properly assess Dr Foy-Yamah's risk given that it found he had raped someone. Campaign group Surviving in Scrubs, founded by two doctors who aim to highlight sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence in the healthcare workforce, told the BBC it was "appalled" by the ruling. "This belittles the traumatic experiences of survivors of sexual assault and undermines public trust in the profession," co-founder Dr Becky Cox said. "It sets a standard that perpetrators of sexual violence face minimal consequences for their actions."..
..The legally qualified chair of the panel, Angus Macpherson, wrote: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated." The GMC has appealed the tribunal's decision to the High Court and said it was "deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming narrative from the tribunal and considered the determination lacked a proper assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct". Dr Foy-Yamah, who maintains his innocence, has also appealed the tribunal's decision...
Isn't the key bit there that the police investigated but did not charge? Hence hr does not have a criminal conviction?
If I have understood this correctly, the Tribunal does not have to apply the criminal standard of proof, in order to establish professional misconduct.
The Tribunal has found that the respondent committed rape. As such, it is very hard to see what ground there can be for not striking him off.
They gave their reason: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated."
That is utterly incredible.
Rape cannot be dismissed as a "one-off event", and it's quite absurd to find "it will not be repeated". How on earth do they know that ? At best you could say it's likely or unlikely. The chair is "legally qualified"; he should know that is a nonsensical judgment.
And how can it not involve patient safety concerns just because the victim wasn't a patient ? Equally absurd.
My wife and I know a woman who was abused as a child.
Her view was that we all don't know the half of sexual abuse, and it's rife: including amongst judges, doctors and even law enforcement.
It's a point @Cyclefree has frequently made, and while I have no great insight, my limited anecdotal knowledge suggests she's right, and I agree.
I doubt there has been a more depressing time since WW2
We have a government in crisis led by a leader who has no future though may hang on just continuing the daily pyscho drama
We await enormous volumns of e mails and whats app messages during Mandelson's time as ambassador with unknown consquences for other labour mps and advisors and unrest with politics by the public
The real danger is the public voting for Reform or the Greens in a mass protest vote and electing extreme right or left mps wholly unsuitable for public office
More Epstein files will be realeased as we watch each breaking news fearing what next
Indeed we could see untold problems with Trump over revelations in our dealing through Mandelson
I would suggest labour need to lance the boil now and demand Starmer resigns and install a temporary leader to stabiise the party with either John Healey or Hilary Benn being a good call
Goodness knows how the bond markets will react and letting things drift is not an option
I had hopes that Starmer would do as he said before the election to promote integrity and accountability into our politics but here we are just over 18 months later with the most unpopular PM in recent hiistory
This is not about point scoring but a deep desire for labour to steady the ship for all our sakes as anything else is unthinkable
May wise minds in labour led by many of the women who are so aggrieved prevail
Problem is what comes after Starmer. If it is Rayner or Miliband then heaven help us.
Starmer is useless, utterly hopeless. He has been a poor PM. But, I honestly think, of the main party leaders and in Labour he is the best of a really poor bunch.
Doctor not struck off by panel over 'one-off' rape https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o A doctor found by a tribunal to have raped a young woman at his home avoided being struck off over what the panel described as a "one-off" attack. Dr Aloaye Foy-Yamah, then a consultant at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, instead had his medical licence suspended for 12 months for attacking the woman. Police investigated but did not charge Dr Foy-Yamah, but the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS) concluded on the balance of probabilities that he had raped the woman - which he denies. The panel, which emphasised the incident had not taken place at work, has been accused of "victim-blaming" and failing to properly assess Dr Foy-Yamah's risk given that it found he had raped someone. Campaign group Surviving in Scrubs, founded by two doctors who aim to highlight sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence in the healthcare workforce, told the BBC it was "appalled" by the ruling. "This belittles the traumatic experiences of survivors of sexual assault and undermines public trust in the profession," co-founder Dr Becky Cox said. "It sets a standard that perpetrators of sexual violence face minimal consequences for their actions."..
..The legally qualified chair of the panel, Angus Macpherson, wrote: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated." The GMC has appealed the tribunal's decision to the High Court and said it was "deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming narrative from the tribunal and considered the determination lacked a proper assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct". Dr Foy-Yamah, who maintains his innocence, has also appealed the tribunal's decision...
Isn't the key bit there that the police investigated but did not charge? Hence hr does not have a criminal conviction?
If I have understood this correctly, the Tribunal does not have to apply the criminal standard of proof, in order to establish professional misconduct.
The Tribunal has found that the respondent committed rape. As such, it is very hard to see what ground there can be for not striking him off.
They gave their reason: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life. "It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated."
That is utterly incredible.
Rape cannot be dismissed as a "one-off event", and it's quite absurd to find "it will not be repeated". How on earth do they know that ? At best you could say it's likely or unlikely. The chair is "legally qualified"; he should know that is a nonsensical judgment.
And how can it not involve patient safety concerns just because the victim wasn't a patient ? Equally absurd.
My wife and I know a woman who was abused as a child.
Her view was that we all don't know the half of sexual abuse, and it's rife: including amongst judges, doctors and even law enforcement.
Doctors; Judges; Law Enforcement. I can't imagine what organisation they all tend to link to?
In short, it is everywhere, and done by people of all types - but we cannot face up to the reality in the societal mirrow.
I am reminded of an account from Dr Elaine Storkey from ages ago (mid-1980s) on a seminar art Greenbelt around "intimacy" in our communities (not sexual intimacy - more about close friendship as a human need for which we seek substitutes if we do not have it), about pornography.
"I found 70 items of pornography in my local newsagents. And I wondered - who, in my quiet Jewish suburb of North London, uses this material? Then it became clear - everyone."
"He appointed Mandelson to the top job in British diplomacy knowing full well that Mandelson remained friends with a CONVICTED child rapist. "
Well now. Let me introduce you to Baron Doyle of Great Barcors, formerly Matthew Doyle, Labour Party Director of Communications from 2021 onwards then Downing Street Director of Communications until March 2025 and appointed a Labour peer in December 2025.
He was a friend of Scottish Labour councillor, Sean Morton. In 2016 he was charged with the possession and distribution of indecent images of children. He was dropped as a Labour councillor and stood as an independent and Matthew Doyle, a Labour Party member, campaigned for him. Isn't this a hanging offence in Labour, campaigning for anyone other than Labour? Never mind.
Sean Morton was subsequently convicted of other child sex abuse image charges and jailed last year. Labour has been very unclear whether Doyle maintained his friendship with Morton after his 2017 conviction. Some sort of vetting investigation has been carried out but Labour refuses to reveal what it says.
Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy is another one who had a friendship with this sex offender, which continued after his conviction. As a result has said she won't be seeking re-election to Holyrood.
If appointing a friend of a convicted sex offender as ambassador is wrong, why is it ok to appoint such a person to the Lords as a legislator? And if Doyle cut his ties with Morton years ago the moment he was convicted, why doesn't Labour say so clearly?
I usually agree with you.
But it’s not clear to me that ostracism will make convicted pedophiles less likely to reoffend in future
You are missing my point. If Mandelson was unsuitable to be ambassador because of his friendship with a convicted sex offender, why is Doyle suitable to be a U.K. legislator?
The first was bad judgment by Starmer. Very well. Then so is the second. Unless the investigation has shown that Doyle did not remain friends after the conviction.
Sex offenders will do pretty much anything to get access to victims. Giving them credibility by remaining friends with them risks undermining safeguarding precisely because people will assume that if a respectable person is their friend then the person is ok. It also sends out a message that these sorts of crimes are not really that serious.
What you are saying is that sex offenders are beyond redemption. That is not correct.
There are sex offenders or people with links to sex offender very likely sat as sleepers in all / almost all Parties. Libel laws prevent naming them or making comments that may make the names clear but they aren't hard to find in any of the main UK Parties.?
What is the solution, a purge, an amnesty.?
What exactly is the definition in terms of being an MP of a sexual affence, major / minor, is there no such thing as minor as an offence is an offence?
It is a very dark and very deep hole.
The best immediate solution is to take party politics out of it, to de-weaponise it politically and to also acknowledge that whilst sex offnces against women are heinous, sex offences against men are equally heinous, as are offences against any other gender.
So as this is an issue currently blighting labour then party politics should be taken out of it but foreign influence in our politics shouldn’t, as it is a stick to beat opponents with. You continually, in that oh so funny way you misspell her name, go on about Priti Patel and Israel yet New Labour was very much in bed with Israel and, for that matter, Russia.
Issues like both of these transcend party politics and affect all major parties and need dealing with overall rather than for petty political advantage. Same with the Covid enquiry.
You really need to stop playing the man and start playing the ball!
Read what I said...
"The best immediate solution is to take party politics out of it, to de-weaponise it politically and to also acknowledge that whilst sex offnces against women are heinous, sex offences against men are equally heinous, as are offences against any other gender".
I fundamentally agree PARTY POLITICS should be taken out of it....
I've no doubt that if the Tories were led by Sunak, May or Cameron or if the Greens were led by Lucas it would be. Unfortunately gutter snips and gob shites currently in Office will and do see everything as a "political opportunity" . May be tome for sage more experienced mP's on all sides to have a quiet word!
The NHS's primary concern is to manage demand, not your personal wellbeing.
That's why they will default to "nothing to worry about" nine times out of ten, because they are playing the numbers.
The contrast with other systems, where doctors are incentivised in a small way to order tests and treatments, is quite stark. Almost every visit to a GP involves bloods or scans, which can often be done on site straight away.
30% of Gorton & Denton is single person households. Must be a few votes in that group.
Leaving aside the party and the candidate who said this, there is a financial logic to it: those who don't have kids will be relying to those who do, and their children, to pay the taxes to support them in their old age. The alternative is heavy immigration.
God knows how you enforce and implement it though.
Importing fully educated and trained young adults is a much more cost effective way of supplying the workforce than having babies.
Plus we can reject those not up to scratch, rather than being stuck with them for a lifetime.
I doubt there has been a more depressing time since WW2
We have a government in crisis led by a leader who has no future though may hang on just continuing the daily pyscho drama
We await enormous volumns of e mails and whats app messages during Mandelson's time as ambassador with unknown consquences for other labour mps and advisors and unrest with politics by the public
The real danger is the public voting for Reform or the Greens in a mass protest vote and electing extreme right or left mps wholly unsuitable for public office
More Epstein files will be realeased as we watch each breaking news fearing what next
Indeed we could see untold problems with Trump over revelations in our dealing through Mandelson
I would suggest labour need to lance the boil now and demand Starmer resigns and install a temporary leader to stabiise the party with either John Healey or Hilary Benn being a good call
Goodness knows how the bond markets will react and letting things drift is not an option
I had hopes that Starmer would do as he said before the election to promote integrity and accountability into our politics but here we are just over 18 months later with the most unpopular PM in recent hiistory
This is not about point scoring but a deep desire for labour to steady the ship for all our sakes as anything else is unthinkable
May wise minds in labour led by many of the women who are so aggrieved prevail
Good grief Big_G is your memory ok?
What about: - Rationing persisting on into the 1950s - Suez Crisis 1956 - Three-day week & power cuts 1974 - IMF bail out 1976 - Winter of Discontent 1979 - Covid crisis 2020
For the Gorton and Denton bet on the Greens, I hope he holds off a little bit. In fact, a lot longer, the thought of him being replaced by Rayner is not a happy one.
Starmer going early makes Rayner less likely, as she won't have sorted out her tax malarkey.
I think a new leader in place by conference is the most likely time frame. Hustings over the summer.
"He appointed Mandelson to the top job in British diplomacy knowing full well that Mandelson remained friends with a CONVICTED child rapist. "
Well now. Let me introduce you to Baron Doyle of Great Barcors, formerly Matthew Doyle, Labour Party Director of Communications from 2021 onwards then Downing Street Director of Communications until March 2025 and appointed a Labour peer in December 2025.
He was a friend of Scottish Labour councillor, Sean Morton. In 2016 he was charged with the possession and distribution of indecent images of children. He was dropped as a Labour councillor and stood as an independent and Matthew Doyle, a Labour Party member, campaigned for him. Isn't this a hanging offence in Labour, campaigning for anyone other than Labour? Never mind.
Sean Morton was subsequently convicted of other child sex abuse image charges and jailed last year. Labour has been very unclear whether Doyle maintained his friendship with Morton after his 2017 conviction. Some sort of vetting investigation has been carried out but Labour refuses to reveal what it says.
Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy is another one who had a friendship with this sex offender, which continued after his conviction. As a result has said she won't be seeking re-election to Holyrood.
If appointing a friend of a convicted sex offender as ambassador is wrong, why is it ok to appoint such a person to the Lords as a legislator? And if Doyle cut his ties with Morton years ago the moment he was convicted, why doesn't Labour say so clearly?
I usually agree with you.
But it’s not clear to me that ostracism will make convicted pedophiles less likely to reoffend in future
You are missing my point. If Mandelson was unsuitable to be ambassador because of his friendship with a convicted sex offender, why is Doyle suitable to be a U.K. legislator?
The first was bad judgment by Starmer. Very well. Then so is the second. Unless the investigation has shown that Doyle did not remain friends after the conviction.
Sex offenders will do pretty much anything to get access to victims. Giving them credibility by remaining friends with them risks undermining safeguarding precisely because people will assume that if a respectable person is their friend then the person is ok. It also sends out a message that these sorts of crimes are not really that serious.
What you are saying is that sex offenders are beyond redemption. That is not correct.
There are sex offenders or people with links to sex offender very likely sat as sleepers in all / almost all Parties. Libel laws prevent naming them or making comments that may make the names clear but they aren't hard to find in any of the main UK Parties.?
What is the solution, a purge, an amnesty.?
What exactly is the definition in terms of being an MP of a sexual affence, major / minor, is there no such thing as minor as an offence is an offence?
It is a very dark and very deep hole.
The best immediate solution is to take party politics out of it, to de-weaponise it politically and to also acknowledge that whilst sex offnces against women are heinous, sex offences against men are equally heinous, as are offences against any other gender.
So as this is an issue currently blighting labour then party politics should be taken out of it but foreign influence in our politics shouldn’t, as it is a stick to beat opponents with. You continually, in that oh so funny way you misspell her name, go on about Priti Patel and Israel yet New Labour was very much in bed with Israel and, for that matter, Russia.
Issues like both of these transcend party politics and affect all major parties and need dealing with overall rather than for petty political advantage. Same with the Covid enquiry.
You really need to stop playing the man and start playing the ball!
Read what I said...
"The best immediate solution is to take party politics out of it, to de-weaponise it politically and to also acknowledge that whilst sex offnces against women are heinous, sex offences against men are equally heinous, as are offences against any other gender".
I fundamentally agree PARTY POLITICS should be taken out of it....
I've no doubt that if the Tories were led by Sunak, May or Cameron or if the Greens were led by Lucas it would be. Unfortunately gutter snips and gob shites currently in Office will and do see everything as a "political opportunity" . May be tome for sage more experienced mP's on all sides to have a quiet word!
Talking of gobshites seeing everything as a political opportunity when will the ‘impartial’ reports on foreign influence and Michelle Mone PPE be out 🤔
The Covid report should be about sorting out what went wrong instead of blaming people.
Oh, and fuck off with the fake offence and deliberate misunderstanding what I said/arguing a point I never made.
You know exactly what I am saying. This issue affects Labour so it needs to be cross party. Others, like foreign interference, don’t so let’s use them as a club.
Given the restrictions that remain, I'm not sure why France would feel the need to block it.
UK companies can participate if there's no EU or EFTA alternative, or if delivery time is shorter.
The UK must also pay a fee into the loan's interest costs, estimated at €20B over seven years
Can anyone advise - that €20B Euro looks to be way over for 7 years interest on a UK share of €90B borrowed for 7 years? I would expect it to be "pro-rata or we walk away", as we did before.
Does anyone have the calculation? To me gut feel, without running the calculations, the share of interest should be closer to €5B . (10 billion borrowed for 7 years at 5%.)
(Update: looking at actual articles not twatter, I'd say that the UK will be paying a share of a total bill of €20B for the entire scheme.)
€20bn is the total interest costs on the loan. EU borrowing costs are not 5%.
..To ensure the most favourable loan terms and to manage Ukraine’s debt sustainability, the interest cost of the loan is planned to be covered by the EU budget...
If we're participating, clearly we should contribute to those costs.
We've yet to see full details, but I suspect this is a good deal for the UK. Which is why France opposed it.
The French being French again.
This is mostly about Storm Shadow, which is a UK/France joint project (they call it SCALP). France doesn’t want the UK making them, but can’t commit itself to build them quickly enough on their own to satisfy the Ukranian order.
In good news over the weekend, it does appear that the lack of Starlink has led to a serious breakdown in Russian communications. A number of villages have fallen on the front lines, and there’s rumours of widespread desertions among the officers as well as the troops.
30% of Gorton & Denton is single person households. Must be a few votes in that group.
Leaving aside the party and the candidate who said this, there is a financial logic to it: those who don't have kids will be relying to those who do, and their children, to pay the taxes to support them in their old age. The alternative is heavy immigration.
God knows how you enforce and implement it though.
Importing fully educated and trained young adults is a much more cost effective way of supplying the workforce than having babies.
Plus we can reject those not up to scratch, rather than being stuck with them for a lifetime.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
(PS genuinely sorry to hear of your continuing deterioration in health. I thought due to lack of news that it had stabilized, but it seems I was wrong. My sympathies
My thoughts are with you and your family at this time. Please keep us informed.
Packs of riders doing laps of Regent’s Park routinely ran stop signals at a new push-button crossing built to try to prevent cyclists from using the circular route in the park as a velodrome."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/08/cyclists-run-red-lights-where-pensioner-was-killed/
First are the regulare recreational cyclists who'll usually stop for the red lights... but if it's quiet and there's no one around, they'll jump the lights.
Second are the Strava segment warriors who don't stop for anyone and race through lights, even if there are cars or pedestrians around.
Both groups need to be discouraged from light jumping. But it is the second group who poses the danger to pedestrians, and where police enforcement should be focused.
Now, every death is regrettable. And people who ignore traffic lights, stop signs and the like, and kill people... Well, they should face consequences.
But let's not try and make policy based around extremely rare events.
Doctor not struck off by panel over 'one-off' rape
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o
A doctor found by a tribunal to have raped a young woman at his home avoided being struck off over what the panel described as a "one-off" attack.
Dr Aloaye Foy-Yamah, then a consultant at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, instead had his medical licence suspended for 12 months for attacking the woman.
Police investigated but did not charge Dr Foy-Yamah, but the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS) concluded on the balance of probabilities that he had raped the woman - which he denies.
The panel, which emphasised the incident had not taken place at work, has been accused of "victim-blaming" and failing to properly assess Dr Foy-Yamah's risk given that it found he had raped someone.
Campaign group Surviving in Scrubs, founded by two doctors who aim to highlight sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence in the healthcare workforce, told the BBC it was "appalled" by the ruling.
"This belittles the traumatic experiences of survivors of sexual assault and undermines public trust in the profession," co-founder Dr Becky Cox said.
"It sets a standard that perpetrators of sexual violence face minimal consequences for their actions."..
..The legally qualified chair of the panel, Angus Macpherson, wrote: "The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life.
"It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated."
The GMC has appealed the tribunal's decision to the High Court and said it was "deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming narrative from the tribunal and considered the determination lacked a proper assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct".
Dr Foy-Yamah, who maintains his innocence, has also appealed the tribunal's decision...
What is the solution, a purge, an amnesty.?
What exactly is the definition in terms of being an MP of a sexual affence, major / minor, is there no such thing as minor as an offence is an offence?
It is a very dark and very deep hole.
The best immediate solution is to take party politics out of it, to de-weaponise it politically and to also acknowledge that whilst sex offnces against women are heinous, sex offences against men are equally heinous, as are offences against any other gender.
That is the required burden of proof in a civil matter. What was before the panel was a civil matter.
Thi is a truly shocking abdication of responsibility. Lord knows what Cyclefree will say. But I can guess.
The Tribunal has found that the respondent committed rape. As such, it is very hard to see what ground there can be for not striking him off.
At the same time, we wouldn't put up a raft of new traffic lights to stop one drunk driving death every 20 years.
And I missed the likely incoming Section 114 Notice in Worcestershire. Oooops.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckglgzpkpk1o
(I'm not aware if this lot have spent half a million on a Councillor car park.)
I am sure all the nutter-monitors will be watching
Will Starmer resign today, do we think?
Does anyone have the calculation? To me gut feel, without running the calculations, the share of interest should be closer to €5B . (10 billion borrowed for 7 years at 5%.)
(Update: looking at actual articles not twatter, I'd say that the UK will be paying a share of a total bill of €20B for the entire scheme.)
A more logical solution would surely be to have a smaller set fee like £5bn and then some kind of small commission deal on agreed deals like 10% of the deal fee.
It's not rocket science!
Why would he resign? The Parliamentary party doesn’t really have a challenger to him and it’s pretty much impossible to kick out a Labour leader against his will, especially when in government. In his mind the Mandelson debacle is fixed by McSweeney resigning, so it’s onwards and upwards from here.
The loss of the by-election at the end of the month might focus a few more minds though. Labour could conceivably come in 3rd behind Reform and Green, then it’s only a couple of months until a shellacking at the locals.
Do they have to determine facts beyond a reasonable doubt to strike off a doctor ?
Tymofiy Mylovanov
@Mylovanov
UK companies can participate if there's no EU or EFTA alternative, or if delivery time is shorter.
The UK must also pay a fee into the loan's interest costs, estimated at €20B over seven
https://x.com/Mylovanov/status/2020589870339490043
He will met the Parliamentary Party this evening and then he is scheduled to meet female MP's on Wednesday after PMQ.
He will clearly be seeking to convince enough to back him and he is not by any means stupid and he clearly does have the ability to read the room, and he may well read the room a lot better without MMc by his side.
The simple maths are this
There is a hardcore of 20 - 25 who will never support him, the rent a gob gobshites who quite frankly should have been kicked off the Jeremy and Zara freak show
There is a bigger core who do support him and want to support him that probably number 125 or so.
It is the 250 core that are key to this, how they break is fundamental to his future and I have a gut feel that they are like a big oil tanker, they will turn quite slowly but once they build a head of steam they are unstoppable.
I suggest is probably 60:40 he survives a week, after which his fate will be sealed after the elections in May.
If it were a pure closed dppr no words spoken outside of this room sealed chamber, I suggest he might offer to stay on to May and then stand aside but in the modern era he simply cannot do that because it would be headline news in seconds.
The Labour leadership process is quite elongated, at least individual Union Members don't have votes or there are no block votes any more and only bona fide Labour Party Members have votes, but I think they would be very wise to limit votes to those who were members on 1 February, to avoid a repeat of when Corbyn sneaked in.
EU borrowing costs are not 5%.
..To ensure the most favourable loan terms and to manage Ukraine’s debt sustainability, the interest cost of the loan is planned to be covered by the EU budget...
If we're participating, clearly we should contribute to those costs.
We've yet to see full details, but I suspect this is a good deal for the UK. Which is why France opposed it.
Sending you all my love.
That's why they will default to "nothing to worry about" nine times out of ten, because they are playing the numbers.
God knows how you enforce and implement it though.
I doubt there has been a more depressing time since WW2
We have a government in crisis led by a leader who has no future though may hang on just continuing the daily pyscho drama
We await enormous volumns of e mails and whats app messages during Mandelson's time as ambassador with unknown consquences for other labour mps and advisors and unrest with politics by the public
The real danger is the public voting for Reform or the Greens in a mass protest vote and electing extreme right or left mps wholly unsuitable for public office
More Epstein files will be realeased as we watch each breaking news fearing what next
Indeed we could see untold problems with Trump over revelations in our dealing through Mandelson
I would suggest labour need to lance the boil now and demand Starmer resigns and install a temporary leader to stabiise the party with either John Healey or Hilary Benn being a good call
Goodness knows how the bond markets will react and letting things drift is not an option
I had hopes that Starmer would do as he said before the election to promote integrity and accountability into our politics but here we are just over 18 months later with the most unpopular PM in recent hiistory
This is not about point scoring but a deep desire for labour to steady the ship for all our sakes as anything else is unthinkable
May wise minds in labour led by many of the women who are so aggrieved prevail
"The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah's personal life.
"It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated."
That is utterly incredible.
Rape cannot be dismissed as a "one-off event", and it's quite absurd to find "it will not be repeated".
How on earth do they know that ?
At best you could say it's likely or unlikely. The chair is "legally qualified"; he should know that is a nonsensical judgment.
And how can it not involve patient safety concerns just because the victim wasn't a patient ?
Equally absurd.
In the same way politicians are useless at spotting business winners, they ought not to be able to direct social engineering e.g. assisted dying. We need less politicians and less laws until they can actually sort out and implement the extensive body of law we already have.
Her view was that we all don't know the half of sexual abuse, and it's rife: including amongst judges, doctors and even law enforcement.
The High Court has apparently already heard the doctor's and GMC's appeals.
No criminal charges brought by the police. The High Court upheld the GMC's appeal on 12 month suspension, requiring a fresh determination by the somewhat lax MPTS
https://x.com/seekeroftruth__/status/2020404098785534076
The guy who posted the story on X yesterday is a vaccine denialist, FWIW.
That's not to say the verdict wasn't absurd; it was. But the system has it seems set it aside.
If we didn't have child benefit right now, and someone proposed to introduce it, we'd hear similar criticism that it was unfairly taxing hardworking people who couldn't have children to give a handout to those who'd chosen to.
And politicians socially engineer all the time. It's literally what they do.
Issues like both of these transcend party politics and affect all major parties and need dealing with overall rather than for petty political advantage. Same with the Covid enquiry.
One of the risks of the Epstein files is that we normies reassure ourselves that evil abuse of power is only done by people with freakish amounts of the stuff- much as "rich" means people richer than we (individually) can imagine being.
That's very largely not the case. But how to balance will-to-power as a driver of human advancement and human suffering is another of those problems that it would be good to solve, but might be impossible.
Starmer is useless, utterly hopeless. He has been a poor PM. But, I honestly think, of the main party leaders and in Labour he is the best of a really poor bunch.
I cannot see anyone else being an improvement.
I am reminded of an account from Dr Elaine Storkey from ages ago (mid-1980s) on a seminar art Greenbelt around "intimacy" in our communities (not sexual intimacy - more about close friendship as a human need for which we seek substitutes if we do not have it), about pornography.
"I found 70 items of pornography in my local newsagents. And I wondered - who, in my quiet Jewish suburb of North London, uses this material? Then it became clear - everyone."
Read what I said...
"The best immediate solution is to take party politics out of it, to de-weaponise it politically and to also acknowledge that whilst sex offnces against women are heinous, sex offences against men are equally heinous, as are offences against any other gender".
I fundamentally agree PARTY POLITICS should be taken out of it....
I've no doubt that if the Tories were led by Sunak, May or Cameron or if the Greens were led by Lucas it would be. Unfortunately gutter snips and gob shites currently in Office will and do see everything as a "political opportunity" . May be tome for sage more experienced mP's on all sides to have a quiet word!
Plus we can reject those not up to scratch, rather than being stuck with them for a lifetime.
NEW THREAD
What about:
- Rationing persisting on into the 1950s
- Suez Crisis 1956
- Three-day week & power cuts 1974
- IMF bail out 1976
- Winter of Discontent 1979
- Covid crisis 2020
To name but a few?
I think a new leader in place by conference is the most likely time frame. Hustings over the summer.
Talking of gobshites seeing everything as a political opportunity when will the ‘impartial’ reports on foreign influence and Michelle Mone PPE be out 🤔
The Covid report should be about sorting out what went wrong instead of blaming people.
Oh, and fuck off with the fake offence and deliberate misunderstanding what I said/arguing a point I never made.
You know exactly what I am saying. This issue affects Labour so it needs to be cross party. Others, like foreign interference, don’t so let’s use them as a club.
Oh and it is Priti not Pritti.
My party right or wrong 🙄
This is mostly about Storm Shadow, which is a UK/France joint project (they call it SCALP). France doesn’t want the UK making them, but can’t commit itself to build them quickly enough on their own to satisfy the Ukranian order.
In good news over the weekend, it does appear that the lack of Starlink has led to a serious breakdown in Russian communications. A number of villages have fallen on the front lines, and there’s rumours of widespread desertions among the officers as well as the troops.