A straw poll. What do people think is the cost of a year's supply on antiretriviral drugs to treat HIV?
At a guess £30,000 to the NHS, but it only costs evil Big Pharma about 87p, and if they are selling it in Africa there's a discounted rate of £5000 picked up by the Gates foundation.
The minutes were taken by a Scottish Government civil servant and were then sent to London (as is protocol). The Scottish Government have a copy of the minutes and have already said the minutes do not make any mention of the claim.
So it can only have been changed after being sent by the Scottish Government to London.
Clearly you haven't read the article. The minutes which (it is claimed) have been leaked were not the ones written by the Scottish civil servant.
That's what the article says.
But it's not what happens. When the FM has a discussion with a Consul and minutes are taken, they are taken by a Scottish civil servant. It was the first clue the article was bullshit. The Scottish Government then send a copy of the minutes to London.
So either only these minutes exist or for some reason the Westminster civil service sent someone up to Edinburgh to record an additional set of minutes at this meeting, even though they would be sent a copy anyway.
The Telegraph didn't fact check the story. Nothing in it is reliable. It's been debunked in less than an hour.
No, mate, you didn't read the Telegraph story. The claim is (i don't know whether it is true or not) that it is the minutes taken BY THE FRENCH we are talking about.
Dirty Politics @HouseOfTraitors 4m4 minutes ago Labour DIRTY TRICK has come home to roost, as Sturgeon story proved to be false & linked to Labour source.
It continues: "The Ambassador....had a truncated meeting with the FM [Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister] (FM running late after a busy Thursday…). Discussion appears to have focused mainly on the political situation, with the FM stating that she wouldn’t want a formal coalition with Labour; that the SNP would almost certainly have a large number of seats... that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material)."
I suppose Sturgeon might have just said that Ed wasn't PM material, and her supposedly wanting Dave to stay PM was just the conjecture of the civil-servant writing the minutes?
Whatever way you look at it there's plenty of wriggle room for Sturgeon and the SNP. They can deny the story to the satisfaction of their supporters and attack the English press. It's actually a bit of a gift for them now.
But it does remain the case that the SNP is praying for a Tory victory as it's the quickest route to IndyRef 2.
A straw poll. What do people think is the cost of a year's supply on antiretriviral drugs to treat HIV?
At a guess £30,000 to the NHS, but it only costs evil Big Pharma about 87p, and if they are selling it in Africa there's a discounted rate of £5000 picked up by the Gates foundation.
About £5k to the NHS and yes the Indians and South Africans are knocking up generics (under licence) at a fraction of the cost. Many of the drugs are now off patent anyway and many more of the commonly used ones will be in the next 3-5 years.
A straw poll. What do people think is the cost of a year's supply on antiretriviral drugs to treat HIV?
Depends which antiretrivirals....Are some of them coming off patent soon and about to potentially become very cheap?
That is what I seemed to remember was mentioned when they were talking about the programme they ran for high risk gay men, who were given antiretrivirals upfront to stop the spread of AIDS. The particular one they were given was quite costly, but about to come off patent protection.
The commonest ones prescribed in this country, i.e. Apripla or Truvada +darunavir/ritonavir?
I believe in that study it was Truvada and they talked about it being £400 a month, but I remember the expert saying it comes off patent in the near future and it will be more like £400 a year.
Dirty Politics @HouseOfTraitors 4m4 minutes ago Labour DIRTY TRICK has come home to roost, as Sturgeon story proved to be false & linked to Labour source.
Spokesman for the French ambassador tells me @NicolaSturgeon did not express a preference for next British prime minister or government. 67 retweets 16 favorites
She would , wouldn't she ? Now that she is in a pickle. Anyway, what was the point of the French telling the Foreign Office ?
If SLab faithful like Hothersall are backtracking...
Duncan Hothersall @dhothersall 16 mins16 minutes ago So both @NicolaSturgeon & French ambassador have now both categorically denied Telegraph story. Apologies to the FM. Looks like I was duped.
It continues: "The Ambassador....had a truncated meeting with the FM [Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister] (FM running late after a busy Thursday…). Discussion appears to have focused mainly on the political situation, with the FM stating that she wouldn’t want a formal coalition with Labour; that the SNP would almost certainly have a large number of seats... that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material)."
I suppose Sturgeon might have just said that Ed wasn't PM material, and her supposedly wanting Dave to stay PM was just the conjecture of the civil-servant writing the minutes?
Whatever way you look at it there's plenty of wriggle room for Sturgeon and the SNP. They can deny the story to the satisfaction of their supporters and attack the English press. It's actually a bit of a gift for them now.
But it does remain the case that the SNP is praying for a Tory victory as it's the quickest route to IndyRef 2.
Yes, all things told the only possible downside for the SNP is just how quickly things have unravelled for the Telegraph story, meaning perhaps not as many people will have gotten worked up about it in the first place to enjoy the vindication of Sturgeon (or at worst, enough wiggle room to be unharmed by it).
Will the Telegraph and the Mail have to pulp their first runs?
Surely the debunk is in time where they can't legally send them for sale without being liable for a huge damages claim.
If Sturgeon sues, and there is no reason why she shouldn't, if she can back her claim that she didn't say what the Telegraph wrote that she said, then both the Telegraph and the Mail will be gagged by their own owners and/or solicitors for the duration of the election campaign.
A straw poll. What do people think is the cost of a year's supply on antiretriviral drugs to treat HIV?
Depends which antiretrivirals....Are some of them coming off patent soon and about to potentially become very cheap?
That is what I seemed to remember was mentioned when they were talking about the programme they ran for high risk gay men, who were given antiretrivirals upfront to stop the spread of AIDS. The particular one they were given was quite costly, but about to come off patent protection.
The commonest ones prescribed in this country, i.e. Apripla or Truvada +darunavir/ritonavir?
I believe in that study it was Truvada and they talked about it being £400 a month, but I remember the expert saying it comes off patent in the near future and it will be more like £400 a year.
Francis the constituent products of Truvada will be off patent in the next year or two. The combination product will retain its patent for a while longer, but the price will fall. Glad to see that PB.commers are not misled by Farage's lies.
It continues: "The Ambassador....had a truncated meeting with the FM [Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister] (FM running late after a busy Thursday…). Discussion appears to have focused mainly on the political situation, with the FM stating that she wouldn’t want a formal coalition with Labour; that the SNP would almost certainly have a large number of seats... that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material)."
I suppose Sturgeon might have just said that Ed wasn't PM material, and her supposedly wanting Dave to stay PM was just the conjecture of the civil-servant writing the minutes?
Whatever way you look at it there's plenty of wriggle room for Sturgeon and the SNP. They can deny the story to the satisfaction of their supporters and attack the English press. It's actually a bit of a gift for them now.
But it does remain the case that the SNP is praying for a Tory victory as it's the quickest route to IndyRef 2.
We'll see how it all pans out. I tend to agree though that Labour are so far gone in Scotland now almost nothing is likely to make a difference. Also this whole farrago will only encourage them to keep using the vote SNP get Tory line and not bother to say anything positive. If I was a Scot I'd want to teach Labour a lesson. I think it could do Labour a little bit of good in England if purely for psychological reasons. The helps to put some distance between Labour and the SNP and makes the united left wing plot seem more far fetched.
If SLab faithful like Hothersall are backtracking...
Duncan Hothersall @dhothersall 16 mins16 minutes ago So both @NicolaSturgeon & French ambassador have now both categorically denied Telegraph story. Apologies to the FM. Looks like I was duped.
twitte
Yep, Mr twitter must have had a mouth full of sick when tweeting that.
Kenny Farquharson @KennyFarq · The question now, I suppose, is whether Nicola privately believes a Tory victory would be best for the SNP and the indy cause. #nickileaks
Kenny Farquharson @KennyFarq · The question now, I suppose, is whether Nicola privately believes a Tory victory would be best for the SNP and the indy cause. #nickileaks
Kenny Farquharson @KennyFarq · The question now, I suppose, is whether Nicola privately believes a Tory victory would be best for the SNP and the indy cause. #nickileaks
Had a look at my Scottish book, equalised profit on Coatsbridge. Going by Electionforecast's model there's have to be a big big swing back to Labour for the rest to move out of profit.
Just objectively looking at Scotland, and election forecast model 8-11 is not a bad price on Labour in Coatsbridge - the majority there is unbefugginglynourmously huge and it doesn't have the personal vote unwind of Gordon Brown. If SNP take this they are taking everything else bar perhaps Glasgow NW.
Dirty Politics @HouseOfTraitors 4m4 minutes ago Labour DIRTY TRICK has come home to roost, as Sturgeon story proved to be false & linked to Labour source.
Why vote for DIRTY LIARS.?
They are stabbing each other.
Source that the source was Labour?
Indeed
Again very difficult to believe that even Labour would be that stupid. If discovered it would be utterly catastrophic for Labour and they would know that. Wiser heads would have prevailed I would have hoped.
However Labour do do smears and they did Red Rag and targeted wives off the politicians so they have some proven form in this area.
Spokesman for the French ambassador tells me @NicolaSturgeon did not express a preference for next British prime minister or government. 67 retweets 16 favorites
She would , wouldn't she ? Now that she is in a pickle. Anyway, what was the point of the French telling the Foreign Office ?
Dirty Politics @HouseOfTraitors 4m4 minutes ago Labour DIRTY TRICK has come home to roost, as Sturgeon story proved to be false & linked to Labour source.
Why vote for DIRTY LIARS.?
They are stabbing each other.
Source that the source was Labour?
Indeed
Again very difficult to believe that even Labour would be that stupid. If discovered it would be utterly catastrophic for Labour and they would know that. Wiser heads would have prevailed I would have hoped.
However Labour do do smears and they did Red Rag and targeted wives off the politicians so they have some proven form in this area.
Former smearer in chief for Labour says he thinks it is an amateur job, as he would have definitely leaked it, but leaked to the French media and then tipped off the British press...so because of it being amateurish and the first quote in the piece is Lib Dem, he pointing his filthy finger at them...but this is one of the most dishonest and disgusting men in recent politics, so who knows.
Nicola SturgeonVerified account @NicolaSturgeon .@Telegraph don't you think you should update this story with the statements from both myself and the French Ambassador that it's untrue?
Basically the Telegraph are exposed as no longer even doing BASIC fact checking. For a broadsheet newspaper, that should be fatally damaging. Any view the Telegraph have of themselves as a Newspaper of Record is blown out the water.
It is, I suspect, if Ed becomes PM, people in a few years time will say Cameron's best legacy was the economy.
Governments which bequeath fiscal deficits of £90.2 billion per annum to their successors do not tend to be remembered for their positive economic legacy. There is no reason to think this government will be an exception.
United Labour party security services plot? I'm not sure on that one.
Agreed - it would be REALLY stupid and/or desperate. Hard to believe they would do this.
But do we think there's a slightest chance that any one person in SLAB could be REALLY stupid and/or that desperate?
Surely not but then I remember some of the geniuses defending their fraudulent expenses on telly as being fine......
Can you think of a particularly Hawkish Labour MP, maybe quite a senior one with an important role in Scottish Labour? One that almost certainly has connections at the highest levels of the civil service and security services from years in Cabinet. I can think of one.
Here is the full text of the British Government's account of the French ambassador's meetings at the Scottish Parliament, including her talks with Nicola Sturgeon.
Something I didn't expect a bit of class from Labour Hame as they issue apology to Sturgeon. Wont get one from Macmurphy though. I have found some respect for James Cook of the BBC as well, that will be him sacked then.
Here is the full text of the British Government's account of the French ambassador's meetings at the Scottish Parliament, including her talks with Nicola Sturgeon.
Well the Telegraph is quite reliable but that story a few years old. A tad high as most Trusts will obtain them under contract and also supply them via a homecare company to make use of the VAT fiddle. Which just goes to show that Farage is a liar who talks complete bollocks.
Do you support an International Health Service at the expense of first rate healthcare for British citizens?
I was browsing a Trust's FOI requests and their annual bill on translation services would quite comfortably pay for an additional doctor. Just one of many additional costs in running an International Health Service.
Here is the full text of the British Government's account of the French ambassador's meetings at the Scottish Parliament, including her talks with Nicola Sturgeon.
The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -
confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.
If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.
Here is the full text of the British Government's account of the French ambassador's meetings at the Scottish Parliament, including her talks with Nicola Sturgeon.
Here is the full text of the British Government's account of the French ambassador's meetings at the Scottish Parliament, including her talks with Nicola Sturgeon.
Here is the full text of the British Government's account of the French ambassador's meetings at the Scottish Parliament, including her talks with Nicola Sturgeon.
Here is the full text of the British Government's account of the French ambassador's meetings at the Scottish Parliament, including her talks with Nicola Sturgeon.
Here is the full text of the British Government's account of the French ambassador's meetings at the Scottish Parliament, including her talks with Nicola Sturgeon.
The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -
confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.
If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.
I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?
Here is the full text of the British Government's account of the French ambassador's meetings at the Scottish Parliament, including her talks with Nicola Sturgeon.
Here is the full text of the British Government's account of the French ambassador's meetings at the Scottish Parliament, including her talks with Nicola Sturgeon.
It is, I suspect, if Ed becomes PM, people in a few years time will say Cameron's best legacy was the economy.
Governments which bequeath fiscal deficits of £90.2 billion per annum to their successors do not tend to be remembered for their positive economic legacy. There is no reason to think this government will be an exception.
Here is the full text of the British Government's account of the French ambassador's meetings at the Scottish Parliament, including her talks with Nicola Sturgeon.
Here is the full text of the British Government's account of the French ambassador's meetings at the Scottish Parliament, including her talks with Nicola Sturgeon.
On another note, I see Sam has been banned. I'm not getting into that, but I need to communicate with him through Vanilla - I assume that's still possible ?
Nicola SturgeonVerified account @NicolaSturgeon .@Telegraph don't you think you should update this story with the statements from both myself and the French Ambassador that it's untrue?
Ouch!
The dead tree press is really struggling with this whole twitter thingy.
The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -
confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.
If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.
I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?
The Telegraph are reporting a story where they make a claim the FM said something. Not "may have" or "allegedly". But that she said it.
The source document makes it clear that the writer does not believe the FM said it.
The SNP will sweep the board now. I've laid off CCB so it is nailed on they will get a 26% swing across the board and take Orkney now too where I haven't backed them.
The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -
confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.
If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.
I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?
The Telegraph are reporting a story where they make a claim the FM said something. Not "may have" or "allegedly". But that she said it.
The source document makes it clear that the writer does not believe the FM said it.
That, to me, smells like a libel but IANAL.
No, the document says that she may have may have not said it. That still means she could have done. Where does that put it in terms of libel?
On another note, I see Sam has been banned. I'm not getting into that, but I need to communicate with him through Vanilla - I assume that's still possible ?
Without going into the fors and againsts, what has he banned for?
The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -
confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.
If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.
I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?
The Telegraph are reporting a story where they make a claim the FM said something. Not "may have" or "allegedly". But that she said it.
The source document makes it clear that the writer does not believe the FM said it.
That, to me, smells like a libel but IANAL.
Also, I'm pretty sure putting allegedly doesn't cut it as a libel defence... allegedly.
It is, I suspect, if Ed becomes PM, people in a few years time will say Cameron's best legacy was the economy.
Governments which bequeath fiscal deficits of £90.2 billion per annum to their successors do not tend to be remembered for their positive economic legacy. There is no reason to think this government will be an exception.
If they started off at a zero deficit, then yes.
Yes, that's what Labour hope people forget or ignore. The problem is that Labour when entering No 10 will then lay the entire blame on the coalition......and as they did on the last three occasions on my lifetime, get away with it yet again
Harman stood at the podium at the Labour conference when they left power and said "don't let them rewrite history" Ha!
We do indeed get the socialist governments we deserve. It's probably a Marxist styled government I fear even more.
On another note, I see Sam has been banned. I'm not getting into that, but I need to communicate with him through Vanilla - I assume that's still possible ?
Without going into the fors and againsts, what has he banned for?
He'll still have access to his vanilla account, so he'll see the message, and should be able to reply. Whether he checks or not, is another matter.
The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -
confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.
If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.
I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?
The Telegraph are reporting a story where they make a claim the FM said something. Not "may have" or "allegedly". But that she said it.
The source document makes it clear that the writer does not believe the FM said it.
That, to me, smells like a libel but IANAL.
No, the document says that she may have may have not said it. That still means she could have done. Where does that put it in terms of libel?
If the document is legit and quoted in full, then the telegraph should be ok.
For example it isn't a libellous comment to say "The SNP would probably prefer a Tory government winning in May, as that makes a second Indyref more likely than a Lab Gov in May."
The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -
confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.
If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.
I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?
The Telegraph are reporting a story where they make a claim the FM said something. Not "may have" or "allegedly". But that she said it.
The source document makes it clear that the writer does not believe the FM said it.
That, to me, smells like a libel but IANAL.
No, the document says that she may have may have not said it. That still means she could have done. Where does that put it in terms of libel?
If the document is legit and quoted in full, then the telegraph should be ok.
For example it isn't a libellous comment to say "The SNP would probably prefer a Tory government winning in May, as that makes a second Indyref more likely than a Lab Gov in May."
But is it libelous to say "Sturgeon wants the Tories to win" based on the note? I don't think it is given that it is suppose to be a note of record, and the wording at the end does give a large amount of room for it being true, and not being a translation error.
The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -
confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.
If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.
I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?
The Telegraph are reporting a story where they make a claim the FM said something. Not "may have" or "allegedly". But that she said it.
The source document makes it clear that the writer does not believe the FM said it.
That, to me, smells like a libel but IANAL.
Also, I'm pretty sure putting allegedly doesn't cut it as a libel defence... allegedly.
Maybe DavidL can provide his opinion in the morning.
As I understand it, the Telegraph is saying it happened. Their reference is, as you say, indicating it may or may not. Because the Telegraph have changed the tone, they are the ones making the claim and their document backing this up, doesn't back it up. If they had said "may or may not" in their article, they would have been reporting the document and while not being an absolute defence from a potential libel would still have given them a possible defence leaving the memo writer with full responsibility.
The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -
confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.
If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.
I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?
The Telegraph are reporting a story where they make a claim the FM said something. Not "may have" or "allegedly". But that she said it.
The source document makes it clear that the writer does not believe the FM said it.
That, to me, smells like a libel but IANAL.
No, the document says that she may have may have not said it. That still means she could have done. Where does that put it in terms of libel?
If the document is legit and quoted in full, then the telegraph should be ok.
For example it isn't a libellous comment to say "The SNP would probably prefer a Tory government winning in May, as that makes a second Indyref more likely than a Lab Gov in May."
But is it libelous to say "Sturgeon wants the Tories to win" based on the note? I don't think it is given that it is suppose to be a note of record, and the wording at the end does give a large amount of room for it being true, and not being a translation error.
The coalition have changed the libel laws, one change that should help the Telegraph.
Protection for those publishing material on a matter of public interest where they reasonably believe that it is in the public interest
On another note, I see Sam has been banned. I'm not getting into that, but I need to communicate with him through Vanilla - I assume that's still possible ?
Without going into the fors and againsts, what has he banned for?
The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -
confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.
If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.
I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?
The Telegraph are reporting a story where they make a claim the FM said something. Not "may have" or "allegedly". But that she said it.
The source document makes it clear that the writer does not believe the FM said it.
That, to me, smells like a libel but IANAL.
No, the document says that she may have may have not said it. That still means she could have done. Where does that put it in terms of libel?
If the document is legit and quoted in full, then the telegraph should be ok.
For example it isn't a libellous comment to say "The SNP would probably prefer a Tory government winning in May, as that makes a second Indyref more likely than a Lab Gov in May."
But is it libelous to say "Sturgeon wants the Tories to win" based on the note? I don't think it is given that it is suppose to be a note of record, and the wording at the end does give a large amount of room for it being true, and not being a translation error.
I think we are reading this differently.
As I read the Telegraph story, they claim that the memo writer CLARIFIED the statement with the French Consul. But the memo does not say this. It does say that the memo writer thinks this may be an error but makes no mention of it being clarified with the Consul.
The Telegraph story is claiming that Sturgeon definitely said it. It is also claiming that the memo writer clarified it to confirm it was definitely said.
On another note, I see Sam has been banned. I'm not getting into that, but I need to communicate with him through Vanilla - I assume that's still possible ?
Without going into the fors and againsts, what has he banned for?
Tpvrdyrt smf DyppF od s [idj [p;;dyrt
Huh...send me a PM if we aren't allowed to discuss it.
Under its plan, any bank or building society that offered such an ISA would be required to invest the money in housing.
This would unlock £5bn to invest in a Future Homes Investment Fund to build 125,000 new homes between 2015 and 2020, according to Mr Miliband, and a Labour government would underwrite the investment.
On another note, I see Sam has been banned. I'm not getting into that, but I need to communicate with him through Vanilla - I assume that's still possible ?
Without going into the fors and againsts, what has he banned for?
On another note, I see Sam has been banned. I'm not getting into that, but I need to communicate with him through Vanilla - I assume that's still possible ?
Without going into the fors and againsts, what has he banned for?
It is interesting that Labour appear to be in constant motion with announcements...none of them really any good or that substantial, but every day they have some they want to run with.
The Tories far less active and the Lib Dems basically nothing.
The Scottish leaders' debate next Tuesday with Murphy & Sturgeon should be 'interesting'.
That would take about 10 minutes for someone to make.
Really? Okay, I want a mock up of 'Jock' Murphy, Colossus Carmichael and a generic hack looking furtive on the steps of the Scottish Office; I'll give you till 02:00 BST.
The Scottish leaders' debate next Tuesday with Murphy & Sturgeon should be 'interesting'.
That would take about 10 minutes for someone to make.
Really? Okay, I want a mock up of 'Jock' Murphy, Colossus Carmichael and a generic hack looking furtive on the steps of the Scottish Office; I'll give you till 02:00 BST.
Chop, chop.
Okay, I'll clarify. It would take someone who wants to make one about 10 minutes. You just use the magic cropper tool, paste onto an image, and add text.
It appears the Hypocrite Hobbit story gets better and better. His service company was setup and administered by an accountancy firm who boasts of their ability to minimize tax bills and it seems his partners story over his bankruptcy / repayment isn't quite as she has made out and of course she uses the same setup as her partner for her earnings.
Now that the story has been completely debunked will the remaining posters on this site holding out for their fantasy view of the world now recant as so many are now doing elsewhere?
Will the other papers who reported this even as a denial story now turn on the Torygaph?
Will Sturgeon sue the Torygraph? I would in her position. The "news story" is one thing but the Cochrane running at the mouth is clearly actionable since he accuses Sturgeon of all sorts of things that can be demonstrated not to be true.
Regardless of above all of this is now grist to the NATS mill.
Just a note on two seats which might turn out to be tighter than the odds suggest and offer risky but viable long-shot opportunities in what are effectively two horse races.
Belfast South
Due to a split unionist vote in 2010 and Sinn Fein not running, the SDLPs Alistair McDonnell strolled in. He may not have such an easy ride this time. He polled 14 000 votes in 2010 but this time round Sinn Fein are running and have put Máirtín Ó Muilleoir out to compete. Máirtín could well outpoll the previous SF standard bearer, Alex Maskey, in the constituency. On paper, the choice of candidate is designed to do damage to the SDLP, Máirtín doesn't frighten the horses so much, has a high profile and the assumption is that this is not a one shot deal, he is there to take McDonnell out one way or another (politically..not old-style republican methods)
The Shinners ground game in this area is notably up this time and it is possible they could eat a very substantial amount into McDonnells vote, beyond what McDonnell gained from their non-presence in 2010.
The split is the potential gap the DUP have been waiting for. Now dominating in what was a fairly strong UUP spot until the 2000s, the man that they usually run with, Jimmy Spratt, isn't in play so they've sent out Jonathan Bell who represents an interesting face. The UUP vote I expect not to stand up but the question is whether Unionists bother at all as Unionist apathy in the constituency has been a been a bit of theme in recent years. If they do decide to turn up then the DUP have a live chance here as I can see them eating further into the UUP share whilst McDonnell has to deal .
What might save McDonnell is a mix of the guilty Prods and Alliance vote. Alliance don't have the high profile candidature of Anna Lo this time and have put frequent South Belfast runner Paula Bradshaw in, a former Ulster Unionist. I'd be surprised if she garners the levels of support of Lo and some of that loss will end up in McDonnell's column. The question is whether its enough to substitute the potential loss to Sinn Fein.
Foyle
Mark Durkan should just see his way home in Foyle but the local election results and stories on the ground suggests he is going to need every last bit of his personal vote and stop Sinn Fein unionist switchers to get home. In both the 2011 Assembly elections and the local Council elections last year Sinn Fein were all over the SDLP like a rash and the gap between the two parties has been falling since 2010. It could well be the Unionist switchers that keep him alive...just...but be had some already in 2010 so he has to find more.
Sinn Fein have been as large as 9/2 for Foyle and its too big. Don't know much about their candidate but he's well embedded up there.
The Tories' lead over Labour on Sporting's GE Seats market increases further to 16 seats, where their respective mid-spread prices are currently 286 seats vs 270 seats.
It appears the Hypocrite Hobbit story gets better and better. His service company was setup and administered by an accountancy firm who boasts of their ability to minimize tax bills and it seems his partners story over his bankruptcy / repayment isn't quite as she has made out and of course she uses the same setup as her partner for her earnings.
You forgot a bit
This specific hobbit sends his kid to a private hobbit school across Hobbitville at a cost per annum of one of the rings....
The coalition have changed the libel laws, one change that should help the Telegraph.
Protection for those publishing material on a matter of public interest where they reasonably believe that it is in the public interest
The extent to which the 2013 Act has changed the law is unclear: there are two (somewhat divergent) cases on it, both of which concern the 'serious harm' threshold in section 1. As for the defence in section 4, there is little to suggest it goes further than common law qualified privilege did in decade before the passage of the Act. This story looks prima facie like a classic case of reportage falling within the principles set out in Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe [2007] 1 AC 359 (HL), which would now be covered by section 4(3) of the 2013 Act.
They seriously neede to be Better, more than right and not not only that but so squeaky that when I run by finger around the pages I get that very high pitched whine
Also being , Palmolive, Andrex puppy clean is a help
Andrew Neil @afneil 25s26 seconds ago Told there's an interesting story about Ms Sturgeon coming up on @Telegraph website 21.30. @Spectator_CH on standby to follow up.
Not sure what this might be - but just noticed it.
She doesn't really strike me as the sort of politician likely to create a sensation.
Obviously,the Tories leaked this. Are they getting so desperate ? Anyway, this is a breach of protocol. THe Tories cannot be trusted even with a confidential meeting concerning a diplomat.
Next, Foreign governments would not trust the Brits keeping things secret.
On another note, the rise and rise of EICIPM seems unstoppable.
I can't believe the Tories would leak that, it makes no sense. Are the French worried about the future of the UK and out to get the SNP? Vive l'ambassador!
How would the French have copies of uk government notes.
But Ms Sturgeon tweeted that the story was "categorically, 100% untrue".
Well lets hope that is true and Telegraph don't have any more evidence. I think I might have tried to come up with something a bit more "flexible" as my defence, you know just in case.
If I understand it correctly, the Telegraph have a leaked document. The existence or contents of that document are probably not in dispute
The spin from the SNP now seems to be that the memo is not an accurate reflection of the content of the meeting.
Comments
BBC coverage of Bristol West.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-32158546
Labour DIRTY TRICK has come home to roost, as Sturgeon story proved to be false & linked to Labour source.
Why vote for DIRTY LIARS.?
They are stabbing each other.
Whatever way you look at it there's plenty of wriggle room for Sturgeon and the SNP. They can deny the story to the satisfaction of their supporters and attack the English press. It's actually a bit of a gift for them now.
But it does remain the case that the SNP is praying for a Tory victory as it's the quickest route to IndyRef 2.
Duncan Hothersall @dhothersall 16 mins16 minutes ago
So both @NicolaSturgeon & French ambassador have now both categorically denied Telegraph story. Apologies to the FM. Looks like I was duped.
But it does remain the case that the SNP is praying for a Tory victory as it's the quickest route to IndyRef 2.
Yes, all things told the only possible downside for the SNP is just how quickly things have unravelled for the Telegraph story, meaning perhaps not as many people will have gotten worked up about it in the first place to enjoy the vindication of Sturgeon (or at worst, enough wiggle room to be unharmed by it).
Night all.
I cannot say that that would be a bad thing.
But it does remain the case that the SNP is praying for a Tory victory as it's the quickest route to IndyRef 2.
We'll see how it all pans out. I tend to agree though that Labour are so far gone in Scotland now almost nothing is likely to make a difference. Also this whole farrago will only encourage them to keep using the vote SNP get Tory line and not bother to say anything positive. If I was a Scot I'd want to teach Labour a lesson. I think it could do Labour a little bit of good in England if purely for psychological reasons. The helps to put some distance between Labour and the SNP and makes the united left wing plot seem more far fetched.
Yep, Mr twitter must have had a mouth full of sick when tweeting that.
·
The question now, I suppose, is whether Nicola privately believes a Tory victory would be best for the SNP and the indy cause. #nickileaks
(I think Nicola was responding to this above)
Nicola Sturgeon ✔ @NicolaSturgeon
@KennyFarq no, I don't
'Torygraph bollox headlines 2 days on trot'
And you fell for to-day's story hook,line & sinker.
OR do I?
Anyway DYOR
PS - Change your profile pic, it still gives me nightmares.
Indeed
Again very difficult to believe that even Labour would be that stupid. If discovered it would be utterly catastrophic for Labour and they would know that. Wiser heads would have prevailed I would have hoped.
However Labour do do smears and they did Red Rag and targeted wives off the politicians so they have some proven form in this area.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11499197/Gay-marriage-will-be-David-Camerons-enduring-legacy.html
Good story.
If Labour can misuse the Intelligence and Security services over a Casus belli, then they will have no qualms about this
For the record, it ain't a modern day Zinoviev letter.
Alabama inmate free after 30 years on death row. How the case against him unraveled.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/03/how-the-case-against-anthony-hinton-on-death-row-for-30-years-unraveled/
But do we think there's a slightest chance that any one person in SLAB could be REALLY stupid and/or that desperate?
Surely not but then I remember some of the geniuses defending their fraudulent expenses on telly as being fine......
Iain Dale ✔ @IainDale
Geordie girl on Gogglebox on Martin Freeman's PPB for Labour.: "I'm not taking political advice from a fucking hobbit!" Genuine Lol!
Nicola SturgeonVerified account
@NicolaSturgeon
.@Telegraph don't you think you should update this story with the statements from both myself and the French Ambassador that it's untrue?
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/584094997890359297
Basically the Telegraph are exposed as no longer even doing BASIC fact checking. For a broadsheet newspaper, that should be fatally damaging. Any view the Telegraph have of themselves as a Newspaper of Record is blown out the water.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11515276/Revealed-Full-text-of-Nicola-Sturgeon-memo.html
I was browsing a Trust's FOI requests and their annual bill on translation services would quite comfortably pay for an additional doctor. Just one of many additional costs in running an International Health Service.
confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.
If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.
Oh my!
We are seriously into Washington Post Watergate territory now, we really are.
Anyway objectively looking at it, that might not be terrible after all.
When the SNP win 59. I'm going to sue the Telegraph.
The dead tree press is really struggling with this whole twitter thingy.
The source document makes it clear that the writer does not believe the FM said it.
That, to me, smells like a libel but IANAL.
Yes, that's what Labour hope people forget or ignore. The problem is that Labour when entering No 10 will then lay the entire blame on the coalition......and as they did on the last three occasions on my lifetime, get away with it yet again
Harman stood at the podium at the Labour conference when they left power and said "don't let them rewrite history" Ha!
We do indeed get the socialist governments we deserve. It's probably a Marxist styled government I fear even more.
For example it isn't a libellous comment to say "The SNP would probably prefer a Tory government winning in May, as that makes a second Indyref more likely than a Lab Gov in May."
As I understand it, the Telegraph is saying it happened. Their reference is, as you say, indicating it may or may not. Because the Telegraph have changed the tone, they are the ones making the claim and their document backing this up, doesn't back it up. If they had said "may or may not" in their article, they would have been reporting the document and while not being an absolute defence from a potential libel would still have given them a possible defence leaving the memo writer with full responsibility.
Protection for those publishing material on a matter of public interest where they reasonably believe that it is in the public interest
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25551640
As I read the Telegraph story, they claim that the memo writer CLARIFIED the statement with the French Consul. But the memo does not say this. It does say that the memo writer thinks this may be an error but makes no mention of it being clarified with the Consul.
The Telegraph story is claiming that Sturgeon definitely said it. It is also claiming that the memo writer clarified it to confirm it was definitely said.
The memo backs up neither of these claims.
Under its plan, any bank or building society that offered such an ISA would be required to invest the money in housing.
This would unlock £5bn to invest in a Future Homes Investment Fund to build 125,000 new homes between 2015 and 2020, according to Mr Miliband, and a Labour government would underwrite the investment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32176740
And what the BBC don't tell you...
Labour appeared to have made its announcement in a hurry, calling the new policy both “Future Homes Fund” and “Future Homes Investment Fund.”
On its press release the party also mistakenly called the new ISA the “First Time Buyer ISA” rather than by its correct name, “Help to Buy ISA”.
Labour’s Treasury team also appeared to be unaware of the details of the policy — initiated by Mr Miliband’s advisers — on Friday night.
Ed Balls is going to have a bit of shock when he wakes up in the morning.
http://tinyurl.com/p4udtpg
The Scottish leaders' debate next Tuesday with Murphy & Sturgeon should be 'interesting'.
#Sturgeon dead on Good Friday to rise again on Monday... it's in the bible people, end of days.
0 retweets 0 favorites
The Tories far less active and the Lib Dems basically nothing.
I wonder who has it right?
Tory Paper and @scottishlabour left with egg on face https://storify.com/theSNP/telegraph-and-the-scottish-labour … #voteSNP #GE15
Storify
Chop, chop.
Now that the story has been completely debunked will the remaining posters on this site holding out for their fantasy view of the world now recant as so many are now doing elsewhere?
Will the other papers who reported this even as a denial story now turn on the Torygaph?
Will Sturgeon sue the Torygraph? I would in her position. The "news story" is one thing but the Cochrane running at the mouth is clearly actionable since he accuses Sturgeon of all sorts of things that can be demonstrated not to be true.
Regardless of above all of this is now grist to the NATS mill.
Belfast South
Due to a split unionist vote in 2010 and Sinn Fein not running, the SDLPs Alistair McDonnell strolled in. He may not have such an easy ride this time. He polled 14 000 votes in 2010 but this time round Sinn Fein are running and have put Máirtín Ó Muilleoir out to compete. Máirtín could well outpoll the previous SF standard bearer, Alex Maskey, in the constituency. On paper, the choice of candidate is designed to do damage to the SDLP, Máirtín doesn't frighten the horses so much, has a high profile and the assumption is that this is not a one shot deal, he is there to take McDonnell out one way or another (politically..not old-style republican methods)
The Shinners ground game in this area is notably up this time and it is possible they could eat a very substantial amount into McDonnells vote, beyond what McDonnell gained from their non-presence in 2010.
The split is the potential gap the DUP have been waiting for. Now dominating in what was a fairly strong UUP spot until the 2000s, the man that they usually run with, Jimmy Spratt, isn't in play so they've sent out Jonathan Bell who represents an interesting face. The UUP vote I expect not to stand up but the question is whether Unionists bother at all as Unionist apathy in the constituency has been a been a bit of theme in recent years. If they do decide to turn up then the DUP have a live chance here as I can see them eating further into the UUP share whilst McDonnell has to deal .
What might save McDonnell is a mix of the guilty Prods and Alliance vote. Alliance don't have the high profile candidature of Anna Lo this time and have put frequent South Belfast runner Paula Bradshaw in, a former Ulster Unionist. I'd be surprised if she garners the levels of support of Lo and some of that loss will end up in McDonnell's column. The question is whether its enough to substitute the potential loss to Sinn Fein.
Foyle
Mark Durkan should just see his way home in Foyle but the local election results and stories on the ground suggests he is going to need every last bit of his personal vote and stop Sinn Fein unionist switchers to get home. In both the 2011 Assembly elections and the local Council elections last year Sinn Fein were all over the SDLP like a rash and the gap between the two parties has been falling since 2010. It could well be the Unionist switchers that keep him alive...just...but be had some already in 2010 so he has to find more.
Sinn Fein have been as large as 9/2 for Foyle and its too big. Don't know much about their candidate but he's well embedded up there.
This specific hobbit sends his kid to a private hobbit school across Hobbitville at a cost per annum of one of the rings....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3024983/SNP-s-Nicola-Sturgeon-tells-Ed-Miliband-ll-call-shots-now.html
They seriously neede to be Better, more than right and not not only that but so squeaky that when I run by finger around the pages I get that very high pitched whine
Also being , Palmolive, Andrex puppy clean is a help
No doubt they are...perhaps.. Maybe... Ish.