Off topic. The reports of 3 police forces investigating Ted Heath starting to look ominous. Wilts, Met & Jersey.
How in God's name can you investigate a dead man? You can't. And it is pointless doing so. There is an inquiry led by Judge Lowell Goddard. She should be looking at this. The police should be concentrating on catching current paedophiles and other criminals.
Otherwise in our attempt to deal with the harm caused by long dead people to other people 50 or more years ago we will overlook the harm currently being done to youngsters now by people who can be stopped, caught, prosecuted and punished.
Call me an idealist but police investigations should not be done half a century after the events in question.
There are grooming gangs still operating in Rotherham, according to reports. Let's focus on stopping them. And elsewhere.
The idea that there are no resources both to investigate both the historical alleged crimes of politicians and the current crimes of civilians is a false one. Both must be investigated with due (or as it would appear overdue) rigour. Investigating one does not lead to ignoring the other - quite the opposite infact.
Of course crimes should be investigated at the time, but if they are not, they must obviously be investigated later - to suggest otherwise is like saying someone shouldn't do an adult education course because they should have learned woodwork at school.
With regard to the other comments here by hard-done-by Conservative party supporters, the story about Heath broke last year, and you can't libel the dead, yet it's taken this IPCC investigation before even a sniff of it has reached the newspapers. I'd hardly call that trial by media, and I find it hardly surprising that now the muzzle has been taken off, they are responding to legitimate public interest in what may turn out to be a seismic political scandal.
There is no point in the police investigating an alleged crime by a dead person. That person cannot be put on trial. It is a total waste of time. And a waste of valuable police resources.
Mr. Llama, when was the last time we had a bald PM?
Churchill, probably. But then Wilson was not exactly hirsute and, from memory, Callaghan was "thinning" (I once stood above him at the Grand Hotel in Brighton). Additionally, in days of yore there was not this fashion for shaven heads to disguise incipient baldness and the TV people were a lot more deferential.
All of which is a nonsense. If a PM potential PM is to be discarded because of how much hair he/she has then we might as well go back to the days of barbarian kings and go for election by combat, and may the biggest thug win.
Mr. Llama, when was the last time we had a bald PM?
Mr Attlee. [EDIT] Mr Churchill (Though Mr. Blair had a bald face - as in "bald faced liar")
I believe the most recent bald Prime Minister was Alec Douglas-Home, who reached his position without being elected to it, and immediately lost the subsequent election.
Cyclefree says ''Too many Leftists seem more concerned about being on the side of anyone who claims to be anti-Western regardless of how much of a bully/fascist/genocidal maniac they actually are. That is not intelligent. It is morally repulsive. ''
Yes, pretty much spot on. Its not good enough for Mr Palmer to plead that civil wars sometimes end when both sides have had their bellyful of killing.
OT Mr Llama, thought you may know the answer to this. I'm watching League of Gentlemen for the umpteenth time and Jack Hawkins' character says he made Half Colonel.
Mr. Llama, when was the last time we had a bald PM?
Churchill, probably. But then Wilson was not exactly hirsute and, from memory, Callaghan was "thinning" (I once stood above him at the Grand Hotel in Brighton). Additionally, in days of yore there was not this fashion for shaven heads to disguise incipient baldness and the TV people were a lot more deferential.
All of which is a nonsense. If a PM potential PM is to be discarded because of how much hair he/she has then we might as well go back to the days of barbarian kings and go for election by combat, and may the biggest thug win.
Off topic. The reports of 3 police forces investigating Ted Heath starting to look ominous. Wilts, Met & Jersey.
How in God's name can you investigate a dead man? You can't. And it is pointless doing so. There is an inquiry led by Judge Lowell Goddard. She should be looking at this. The police should be concentrating on catching current paedophiles and other criminals.
Otherwise in our attempt to deal with the harm caused by long dead people to other people 50 or more years ago we will overlook the harm currently being done to youngsters now by people who can be stopped, caught, prosecuted and punished.
Call me an idealist but police investigations should not be done half a century after the events in question.
There are grooming gangs still operating in Rotherham, according to reports. Let's focus on stopping them. And elsewhere.
The idea that there are no resources both to investigate both the historical alleged crimes of politicians and the current crimes of civilians is a false one. Both must be investigated with due (or as it would appear overdue) rigour. Investigating one does not lead to ignoring the other - quite the opposite infact.
Of course crimes should be investigated at the time, but if they are not, they must obviously be investigated later - to suggest otherwise is like saying someone shouldn't do an adult education course because they should have learned woodwork at school.
With regard to the other comments here by hard-done-by Conservative party supporters, the story about Heath broke last year, and you can't libel the dead, yet it's taken this IPCC investigation before even a sniff of it has reached the newspapers. I'd hardly call that trial by media, and I find it hardly surprising that now the muzzle has been taken off, they are responding to legitimate public interest in what may turn out to be a seismic political scandal.
There is no point in the police investigating an alleged crime by a dead person. That person cannot be put on trial. It is a total waste of time. And a waste of valuable police resources.
Not so. The children abused by Jimmy Savile no longer have to put up with him being revered in the media, they get to see him castigated for what he did. I don't think that is a waste of time
I wonder if there's any difference between being bald by genetics or bald by fashion? For example Chuka shaves his head. Are there any black MPs with much/any hair?
I just keep seeing Bernie Grant in my minds-eye and he's been gone for ages.
Mr. Llama, when was the last time we had a bald PM?
Mr Attlee. [EDIT] Mr Churchill (Though Mr. Blair had a bald face - as in "bald faced liar")
I believe the most recent bald Prime Minister was Alec Douglas-Home, who reached his position without being elected to it, and immediately lost the subsequent election.
Here's mine: 1. Restoring public health with new guidelines and advice following traditional dietary habits 2. Leaving the EU, a new codified British constitution and a settling period of 5 years before forming any other treaty based alliances 3. Neutrality in all foreign conflicts where Britain's interests were not directly affected 4. Restoring a favourable balance of trade 5. A gradual rolling back of state dependency and where possible the state's role entirely in every area of British life
That's...actually a good question. It's harder than it seems - I feel I would struggle, and the best I could do is come up with some general principles from which I would react to each developing situation.
@Plato - The only difference between the follicle challenged and those that shave is the level of vanity – and that is where my expertise on the subject comes to an end I'm afraid – BTW.
Order of rank: Major, Lieutenant Colonel, (full) Colonel – Lt. Colonel often called half Colonels.
Off topic. The reports of 3 police forces investigating Ted Heath starting to look ominous. Wilts, Met & Jersey.
How in God's name can you investigate a dead man? You can't. And it is pointless doing so. There is an inquiry led by Judge Lowell Goddard. She should be looking at this. The police should be concentrating on catching current paedophiles and other criminals.
Otherwise in our attempt to deal with the harm caused by long dead people to other people 50 or more years ago we will overlook the harm currently being done to youngsters now by people who can be stopped, caught, prosecuted and punished.
Call me an idealist but police investigations should not be done half a century after the events in question.
There are grooming gangs still operating in Rotherham, according to reports. Let's focus on stopping them. And elsewhere.
The idea that there are no resources both to investigate both the historical alleged crimes of politicians and the current crimes of civilians is a false one. Both must be investigated with due (or as it would appear overdue) rigour. Investigating one does not lead to ignoring the other - quite the opposite infact.
Of course crimes should be investigated at the time, but if they are not, they must obviously be investigated later - to suggest otherwise is like saying someone shouldn't do an adult education course because they should have learned woodwork at school.
With regard to the other comments here by hard-done-by Conservative party supporters, the story about Heath broke last year, and you can't libel the dead, yet it's taken this IPCC investigation before even a sniff of it has reached the newspapers. I'd hardly call that trial by media, and I find it hardly surprising that now the muzzle has been taken off, they are responding to legitimate public interest in what may turn out to be a seismic political scandal.
There is no point in the police investigating an alleged crime by a dead person. That person cannot be put on trial. It is a total waste of time. And a waste of valuable police resources.
Our political establishment may have been guilty, to the very top, of the most heinous crimes against children, within most adult's living memories, and you see no case for this being brought into the open? I'm not sure where you're coming from on this.
@Plato - The only difference between the follicle challenged and those that shave is the level of vanity – and that is where my expertise on the subject comes to an end I'm afraid – BTW.
Order of rank: Major, Lieutenant Colonel, (full) Colonel – Lt. Colonel often called half Colonels.
I still have a lurking suspicion that the next Conservative leader has barely been talked about yet. Of those listed above I have the following observations:
George Osborne: closely tied to David Cameron, unclear whether he actually wants the job, hasn't got the common touch and knows it.
Sajid Javid: has the backstory, has a brain, needs to be seen by the public more to see whether he's ready for primetime. Doesn't justify the price - yet.
Boris Johnson: a leader for opposition not government. Needs to do something spectacular to change this.
Liam Fox: dear God no. Surely even the Tories aren't that stupid?
Theresa May: competent, dull, old.
Michael Gove: see Liam Fox.
Jeremy Hunt: resembles a daytime TV doctor who has to tell you that he is going to give you a proctoscope. Fails the Vladimir Putin test.
Nicky Morgan: like most people, I couldn't pick her out of an identity parade. Her possible route to leader resembles Fortinbras's.
Miss Plato, baldness in men is caused by superior operation of the brain consuming all available energy, and not having the excess used by other men to grow a roof garden.
Women, of course, are able to multi-task and engage in both optimal thinking and follicle foliage without difficulty.
[I started shaving my head early this year as my hair was thinning substantially and it was looking rubbish. This has also improved my aerodynamics and enhanced my top speed].
There is no point in the police investigating an alleged crime by a dead person. That person cannot be put on trial. It is a total waste of time. And a waste of valuable police resources.
All true Mrs. Free but you must also look at these matters from the point of view of the police officers involved. Getting onto a team investigating someone like Heath about events that may or may not have taken place fifty years ago is to a copper like winning the professional jackpot.
First off, there will be no requirement to deal with nasty people who might become violent or otherwise difficult. That said, there will probably be some elderly and/or frail people to interview which should allow for some good low level bullying.
Secondly, the job is basically 9 to 5 Monday to Friday with no need for anti-social hours. However, it will require a lot of traveling around so there will be plenty of overtime and expenses to be claimed. The fact that four or five forces have now joined in, is fantastic - the co-ordination meetings alone will require many hotel stays and discussions in the bar (that Jersey has joined in just pure gravy).
Thirdly, nobody really expects results. So there are no performance indicators to worry about and no stress. Just potter about taking statements and trace potential witnesses and everyone will be happy, and with care you should be able to spin it out for years.
No, Mrs Free from the coppers point of view the Heath enquiry is a godsend and detectives will be fighting to get on it.
Off topic. The reports of 3 police forces investigating Ted Heath starting to look ominous. Wilts, Met & Jersey.
The idea that there are no resources both to investigate both the historical alleged crimes of politicians and the current crimes of civilians is a false one. Both must be investigated with due (or as it would appear overdue) rigour. Investigating one does not lead to ignoring the other - quite the opposite infact.
Of course crimes should be investigated at the time, but if they are not, they must obviously be investigated later - to suggest otherwise is like saying someone shouldn't do an adult education course because they should have learned woodwork at school.
With regard to the other comments here by hard-done-by Conservative party supporters, the story about Heath broke last year, and you can't libel the dead, yet it's taken this IPCC investigation before even a sniff of it has reached the newspapers. I'd hardly call that trial by media, and I find it hardly surprising that now the muzzle has been taken off, they are responding to legitimate public interest in what may turn out to be a seismic political scandal.
There is no point in the police investigating an alleged crime by a dead person. That person cannot be put on trial. It is a total waste of time. And a waste of valuable police resources.
Not so. The children abused by Jimmy Savile no longer have to put up with him being revered in the media, they get to see him castigated for what he did. I don't think that is a waste of time
*Bangs head on desk*
They do not get to see him castigated for what he did. Because he is dead. And beyond any castigating.
It is not the job of the police to stop people being revered in the media. It really isn't. The job of the police is to keep order and investigate crimes. Crimes committed by living people. Who can then be brought to justice.
The police do not have infinite resources. They need to use them sensibly. Try telling a current victim: a 13-year old repeatedly subject to gang rape that the police in her area - let's call it Yorkshire - cannot investigate her allegations because they are too busy making sure that a dead person is no longer being revered. But never mind, eh, because in time she too may have the satisfaction of seeing her abusers no longer be revered or maybe by then she will have been too damaged and her life ruined and her abusers will have discarded her and got away with it and moved onto the next victims.
Miss Plato, baldness in men is caused by superior operation of the brain consuming all available energy, and not having the excess used by other men to grow a roof garden.
Women, of course, are able to multi-task and engage in both optimal thinking and follicle foliage without difficulty.
[I started shaving my head early this year as my hair was thinning substantially and it was looking rubbish. This has also improved my aerodynamics and enhanced my top speed].
Miss Plato, baldness in men is caused by superior operation of the brain consuming all available energy, and not having the excess used by other men to grow a roof garden.
Women, of course, are able to multi-task and engage in both optimal thinking and follicle foliage without difficulty.
[I started shaving my head early this year as my hair was thinning substantially and it was looking rubbish. This has also improved my aerodynamics and enhanced my top speed].
Mr. Llama, when was the last time we had a bald PM?
Mr Attlee. [EDIT] Mr Churchill (Though Mr. Blair had a bald face - as in "bald faced liar")
I believe the most recent bald Prime Minister was Alec Douglas-Home, who reached his position without being elected to it, and immediately lost the subsequent election.
I don't think that Sir Alec was bald when PM. (Though I stand to be corrected) Though he later became more and more "receding".
Off topic. The reports of 3 police forces investigating Ted Heath starting to look ominous. Wilts, Met & Jersey.
How in God's name can you investigate a dead man? You can't. And it is pointless doing so. There is an inquiry led by Judge Lowell Goddard. She should be looking at this. The police should be concentrating on catching current paedophiles and other criminals.
Otherwise in our attempt to deal with the harm caused by long dead people to other people 50 or more years ago we will overlook the harm currently being done to youngsters now by people who can be stopped, caught, prosecuted and punished.
Call me an idealist but police investigations should not be done half a century after the events in question.
There are grooming gangs still operating in Rotherham, according to reports. Let's focus on stopping them. And elsewhere.
The idea that there are no resources both to investigate both the historical alleged crimes of politicians and the current crimes of civilians is a false one. Both must be investigated with due (or as it would appear overdue) rigour. Investigating one does not lead to ignoring the other - quite the opposite infact.
Of course crimes should be investigated at the time, but if they are not, they must obviously be investigated later - to suggest otherwise is like saying someone shouldn't do an adult education course because they should have learned woodwork at school.
With regard to the other comments here by hard-done-by Conservative party supporters, the story about Heath broke last year, and you can't libel the dead, yet it's taken this IPCC investigation before even a sniff of it has reached the newspapers. I'd hardly call that trial by media, and I find it hardly surprising that now the muzzle has been taken off, they are responding to legitimate public interest in what may turn out to be a seismic political scandal.
There is no point in the police investigating an alleged crime by a dead person. That person cannot be put on trial. It is a total waste of time. And a waste of valuable police resources.
Our political establishment may have been guilty, to the very top, of the most heinous crimes against children, within most adult's living memories, and you see no case for this being brought into the open? I'm not sure where you're coming from on this.
But isn't that the role of the Judicial Enquiry rather than the police?
Police that seem more keen on twitter and facebook crime than burglary or muggings...
That's...actually a good question. It's harder than it seems - I feel I would struggle, and the best I could do is come up with some general principles from which I would react to each developing situation.
I remember a long time ago seeing some anarchist graffiti: 1) rob the banks 2) arm the people 3) tear down the state. OK, that's only 3, and it's not a manifesto that personally I could ever sign up to, but it did strike me as a model in terms of clarity.
Our political establishment may have been guilty, to the very top, of the most heinous crimes against children, within most adult's living memories, and you see no case for this being brought into the open? I'm not sure where you're coming from on this.
Cyclefree. I have to side with Lucky on this one for two reasons:
1. if the abuse were a part of a system or a clique, you have to ensure that that system/clique is no longer operational, and that the conditions that allowed it to flourish have been eliminated; 2. if there are living victims, they deserve to have the facts known.
Mr. 1983: 1) War with France 2) Trebuchet-based justice system 3) Political incompetents to be fired into the heart of the sun from some sort of giant space cannon 4) Genetic creation of the enormo-haddock army 5) Construction of a small fleet of Death Stars, entirely for defensive purposes
Or, if we're being serious: 1) Defence spending increased 2) STEM subjects having zero tuition fees, with tax breaks and so forth to encourage science and engineering projects and businesses to start and stay here 3) Leave the EU 4) An English Parliament 5) Removing VAT from e-books
[I might alter that if I were spending lots of time giving it serious thought, but they're all valid points, I think].
They do not get to see him castigated for what he did. Because he is dead. And beyond any castigating.
It is not the job of the police to stop people being revered in the media. It really isn't. The job of the police is to keep order and investigate crimes. Crimes committed by living people. Who can then be brought to justice.
The police do not have infinite resources. They need to use them sensibly. Try telling a current victim: a 13-year old repeatedly subject to gang rape that the police in her area - let's call it Yorkshire - cannot investigate her allegations because they are too busy making sure that a dead person is no longer being revered. But never mind, eh, because in time she too may have the satisfaction of seeing her abusers no longer be revered or maybe by then she will have been too damaged and her life ruined and her abusers will have discarded her and got away with it and moved onto the next victims.
Again you're making a false, emotive comparison.
The Metropolitan Police (for example) have spent over £11 million (and counting https://govwaste.co.uk/ ) on beseiging Julian Assange. There is plenty of money there to investigate Rotherham as well as Heath's misdeeds. The problem with Rotherham is not one of resources, it is one of distorted principles. Exposing high level child abuse can only help in this cause.
Mr. Llama, when was the last time we had a bald PM?
Mr Attlee. [EDIT] Mr Churchill (Though Mr. Blair had a bald face - as in "bald faced liar")
I believe the most recent bald Prime Minister was Alec Douglas-Home, who reached his position without being elected to it, and immediately lost the subsequent election.
I don't think that Sir Alec was bald when PM. (Though I stand to be corrected) Though he later became more and more "receding".
I still have a lurking suspicion that the next Conservative leader has barely been talked about yet. Of those listed above I have the following observations:
George Osborne: closely tied to David Cameron, unclear whether he actually wants the job, hasn't got the common touch and knows it.
Sajid Javid: has the backstory, has a brain, needs to be seen by the public more to see whether he's ready for primetime. Doesn't justify the price - yet.
Boris Johnson: a leader for opposition not government. Needs to do something spectacular to change this.
Liam Fox: dear God no. Surely even the Tories aren't that stupid?
Theresa May: competent, dull, old.
Michael Gove: see Liam Fox.
Jeremy Hunt: resembles a daytime TV doctor who has to tell you that he is going to give you a proctoscope. Fails the Vladimir Putin test.
Nicky Morgan: like most people, I couldn't pick her out of an identity parade. Her possible route to leader resembles Fortinbras's.
The only clear bet is to lay Boris Johnson.
What are your thoughts on Philip Hammond?
Especially if Corbyn becomes Labour leader, might the Tories' preferred focus for 2020 be foreign policy rather than the economy?
Our political establishment may have been guilty, to the very top, of the most heinous crimes against children, within most adult's living memories, and you see no case for this being brought into the open? I'm not sure where you're coming from on this.
Cyclefree. I have to side with Lucky on this one for two reasons:
1. if the abuse were a part of a system or a clique, you have to ensure that that system/clique is no longer operational, and that the conditions that allowed it to flourish have been eliminated; 2. if there are living victims, they deserve to have the facts known.
Quite. It's far from clear that the past is over. It may well not even be past.
And if the rumours turn out to be a load of rubbish, it would be good for public confidence in the political system if they were scotched once and for all.
@Plato - The only difference between the follicle challenged and those that shave is the level of vanity – and that is where my expertise on the subject comes to an end I'm afraid – BTW.
Order of rank: Major, Lieutenant Colonel, (full) Colonel – Lt. Colonel often called half Colonels.
Mr. 1983: 1) War with France 2) Trebuchet-based justice system 3) Political incompetents to be fired into the heart of the sun from some sort of giant space cannon 4) Genetic creation of the enormo-haddock army 5) Construction of a small fleet of Death Stars, entirely for defensive purposes
Or, if we're being serious: 1) Defence spending increased 2) STEM subjects having zero tuition fees, with tax breaks and so forth to encourage science and engineering projects and businesses to start and stay here 3) Leave the EU 4) An English Parliament 5) Removing VAT from e-books
[I might alter that if I were spending lots of time giving it serious thought, but they're all valid points, I think].
Our political establishment may have been guilty, to the very top, of the most heinous crimes against children, within most adult's living memories, and you see no case for this being brought into the open? I'm not sure where you're coming from on this.
Cyclefree. I have to side with Lucky on this one for two reasons:
1. if the abuse were a part of a system or a clique, you have to ensure that that system/clique is no longer operational, and that the conditions that allowed it to flourish have been eliminated; 2. if there are living victims, they deserve to have the facts known.
Quite. It's far from clear that the past is over. It may well not even be past.
And if the rumours turn out to be a load of rubbish, it would be good for public confidence in the political system if they were scotched once and for all.
These investigations can not ever clear anyone. All they do is prove how good the establishment is at covering their traces.
Off topic. The reports of 3 police forces investigating Ted Heath starting to look ominous. Wilts, Met & Jersey.
The idea that there are no resources both to investigate both the historical alleged crimes of politicians and the current crimes of civilians is a false one. Both must be investigated with due (or as it would appear overdue) rigour. Investigating one does not lead to ignoring the other - quite the opposite infact.
Of course crimes should be investigated at the time, but if they are not, they must obviously be investigated later - to suggest otherwise is like saying someone shouldn't do an adult education course because they should have learned woodwork at school.
There is no point in the police investigating an alleged crime by a dead person. That person cannot be put on trial. It is a total waste of time. And a waste of valuable police resources.
Not so. The children abused by Jimmy Savile no longer have to put up with him being revered in the media, they get to see him castigated for what he did. I don't think that is a waste of time
*Bangs head on desk*
They do not get to see him castigated for what he did. Because he is dead. And beyond any castigating.
It is not the job of the police to stop people being revered in the media. It really isn't. The job of the police is to keep order and investigate crimes. Crimes committed by living people. Who can then be brought to justice.
The police do not have infinite resources. They need to use them sensibly. Try telling a current victim: a 13-year old repeatedly subject to gang rape that the police in her area - let's call it Yorkshire - cannot investigate her allegations because they are too busy making sure that a dead person is no longer being revered. But never mind, eh, because in time she too may have the satisfaction of seeing her abusers no longer be revered or maybe by then she will have been too damaged and her life ruined and her abusers will have discarded her and got away with it and moved onto the next victims.
I'd bang your head on the desk harder, it might knock some sense into it
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
The police do not have infinite resources. They need to use them sensibly. Try telling a current victim: a 13-year old repeatedly subject to gang rape that the police in her area - let's call it Yorkshire - cannot investigate her allegations because they are too busy making sure that a dead person is no longer being revered. But never mind, eh, because in time she too may have the satisfaction of seeing her abusers no longer be revered or maybe by then she will have been too damaged and her life ruined and her abusers will have discarded her and got away with it and moved onto the next victims.
Ms Cyclefree, I've heard the same logic used to suggest that the Police should not be catching speeding motorists, but out catching "real" criminals. (1)
Especially if Corbyn becomes Labour leader, might the Tories' preferred focus for 2020 be foreign policy rather than the economy?
For me, Philip Hammond is in the same category as Nicky Morgan.
I'm coming back round to the idea of Theresa May as the next Conservative leader. She has unquestionable experience, has mummy appeal and seems steady. The young cardinals might wish to elect an old pope as well. But first she'd need to make her peace with George Osborne.
Miss Plato, no, but I'm sure I'll catch it sooner or later [meant to be contemplating a new plot outline now...]
But, whilst I'm procrastinating, by chance I'm re-reading Zhuge Liang and Liu Ji's commentaries on Sun Tzu's Art of War, which has lots of references to the past including the Qin dynasty [well, 'dynasty' might be generous, it didn't last too long, but did pave the way for the Han].
@Plato - The only difference between the follicle challenged and those that shave is the level of vanity – and that is where my expertise on the subject comes to an end I'm afraid – BTW.
Order of rank: Major, Lieutenant Colonel, (full) Colonel – Lt. Colonel often called half Colonels.
@Plato - The only difference between the follicle challenged and those that shave is the level of vanity – and that is where my expertise on the subject comes to an end I'm afraid – BTW.
Order of rank: Major, Lieutenant Colonel, (full) Colonel – Lt. Colonel often called half Colonels.
I think you mean Rear Admiral and ‘Vice’ admiral – Commanding officers of Regiments and large units are normally Lieutenant Colonels, above that rank they come under General Staff and rarely have much to do with rank and file, hence the differentiation between half and full Colonels - Both Rear Admiral and Vice admirals are senior staff officers, one step below the equivalent of a General.
The police do not have infinite resources. They need to use them sensibly. Try telling a current victim: a 13-year old repeatedly subject to gang rape that the police in her area - let's call it Yorkshire - cannot investigate her allegations because they are too busy making sure that a dead person is no longer being revered. But never mind, eh, because in time she too may have the satisfaction of seeing her abusers no longer be revered or maybe by then she will have been too damaged and her life ruined and her abusers will have discarded her and got away with it and moved onto the next victims.
Ms Cyclefree, I've heard the same logic used to suggest that the Police should not be catching speeding motorists, but out catching "real" criminals. (1)
(1) usually put forward by keen motorists.
I would have thought catching speeding motorists had a return on investment of more than 100% :-)
1. Reduce inequality; specifically, the wealth gap between the top 1% (or so) and the rest 2. A foreign policy with humanitarianism and the basic equality of human beings as its guiding principle 3. A domestic policy with economic and environmental sustainability as its guiding principle 4. Ensure everyone is equipped and enabled to contribute to society however they can, and no-one is left 'on the scrapheap' 5. A respect for individual civil liberties*, and a recognition that power and control corrupt at all levels
@Plato - The only difference between the follicle challenged and those that shave is the level of vanity – and that is where my expertise on the subject comes to an end I'm afraid – BTW.
Order of rank: Major, Lieutenant Colonel, (full) Colonel – Lt. Colonel often called half Colonels.
Yes, sort of. Any RN types will probably throw a spasm, but yes it is inasmuch as it is an Admiral's rank below full admiral. There are also Vice Admirals, and there used to be (may still be for all I know) Admirals, Vice Admirals, and Rear-Admirals of the Red, the White and the Blue as well as the Fleet, giving 12 ranks of admiral altogether.
A similar thing happens in the Army with generals. You'll probably know that Lieutenants is rank two down from Majors. Well we have Generals, Lieutenant Generals and Major Generals in that order of seniority, i.e. a Lieutenant_General outranks a Major-General. We used also to have Brigadier-Generals (the Septics still do) but now we just have Brigadiers - the title General was removed in the late Victorian reforms to save money.
The police do not have infinite resources. They need to use them sensibly. Try telling a current victim: a 13-year old repeatedly subject to gang rape that the police in her area - let's call it Yorkshire - cannot investigate her allegations because they are too busy making sure that a dead person is no longer being revered. But never mind, eh, because in time she too may have the satisfaction of seeing her abusers no longer be revered or maybe by then she will have been too damaged and her life ruined and her abusers will have discarded her and got away with it and moved onto the next victims.
Ms Cyclefree, I've heard the same logic used to suggest that the Police should not be catching speeding motorists, but out catching "real" criminals. (1)
(1) usually put forward by keen motorists.
I don't know what else to say. Investigate living people. It should not be hard to understand this simple point.
In the case of sexual offences - well, pretty much all crimes, but those especially - the sooner after the alleged offence you investigate the greater the chances of success. You have a greater chance of getting corroborative evidence, good quality forensic evidence and better memories. The longer you wait, the harder it is. And, critically, the alleged criminal can go on committing more crimes and others, tempted to do the same thing, calculate that they have little chance of being caught.
The police are not there to provide therapy for victims nor are they a branch of journalism. Primarily they are there to investigate and prevent crime.
Was unbespectacled until around 42 years of age then to hell in a hand basket within 18 months. Now +2.5-3.0. At least no astigmatism, but cataracts in both eyes (one removed so far, but that's another long story.)
Especially if Corbyn becomes Labour leader, might the Tories' preferred focus for 2020 be foreign policy rather than the economy?
For me, Philip Hammond is in the same category as Nicky Morgan.
I'm coming back round to the idea of Theresa May as the next Conservative leader. She has unquestionable experience, has mummy appeal and seems steady. The young cardinals might wish to elect an old pope as well. But first she'd need to make her peace with George Osborne.
If May became the next Tory leader, I think the Conservatives would have made a great decision. She's much better than Osborne.
@Plato - The only difference between the follicle challenged and those that shave is the level of vanity – and that is where my expertise on the subject comes to an end I'm afraid – BTW.
Order of rank: Major, Lieutenant Colonel, (full) Colonel – Lt. Colonel often called half Colonels.
Yes, sort of. Any RN types will probably throw a spasm, but yes it is inasmuch as it is an Admiral's rank below full admiral. There are also Vice Admirals, and there used to be (may still be for all I know) Admirals, Vice Admirals, and Rear-Admirals of the Red, the White and the Blue as well as the Fleet, giving 12 ranks of admiral altogether.
A similar thing happens in the Army with generals. You'll probably know that Lieutenants is rank two down from Majors. Well we have Generals, Lieutenant Generals and Major Generals in that order of seniority, i.e. a Lieutenant_General outranks a Major-General. We used also to have Brigadier-Generals (the Septics still do) but now we just have Brigadiers - the title General was removed in the late Victorian reforms to save money.
I reckon the next PM is almost certainly Osborne (unless Cameron does a U-turn and fights & wins a third term) and if not, then it will be one of the current Ministers below Cabinet rank. Can't see any one of the current Cabinet likely to offer either a fresh start or be suitably electable across the social and geographical spectra.
Not sure Osborne would in truth, but he'd be a damned sight better choice than Boris, Fox, May, Gove, Hunt or Morgan.
Though I do wonder what voters would do if the main 2020 battle was between newly imposed PM Boris and an "exceeding-all-expectations-in-the-polls-and-therefore-they're-stuck-with-him" Labour leader Corbyn!
Especially if Corbyn becomes Labour leader, might the Tories' preferred focus for 2020 be foreign policy rather than the economy?
For me, Philip Hammond is in the same category as Nicky Morgan.
I'm coming back round to the idea of Theresa May as the next Conservative leader. She has unquestionable experience, has mummy appeal and seems steady. The young cardinals might wish to elect an old pope as well. But first she'd need to make her peace with George Osborne.
If May became the next Tory leader, I think the Conservatives would have made a great decision. She's much better than Osborne.
She would be a disaster. Maggie without the charm, the real face of the nasty party.
Especially if Corbyn becomes Labour leader, might the Tories' preferred focus for 2020 be foreign policy rather than the economy?
For me, Philip Hammond is in the same category as Nicky Morgan.
I'm coming back round to the idea of Theresa May as the next Conservative leader. She has unquestionable experience, has mummy appeal and seems steady. The young cardinals might wish to elect an old pope as well. But first she'd need to make her peace with George Osborne.
Andy Burnham gave quite a thoughtful answer on Theresa May:
I have a lot of regard for Theresa May. I've found her to be decent and she honours what she says. That makes her quite formidable. Going down the pecking order, I think Osborne is a good politician, but this is his problem: he looks scheming and tactical and I think that's quite unappealing - it makes him easier to take on than people might realise. Of the three, I would least fear Boris. He seems to me to be somebody that the vast majority of the country would think: 'How out of touch is this bloke?' The things he gets away with now he wouldn't in the top job.
The perception that May does what she thinks is right for the country, rather than what's in her party's interests (as Osborne does, in addition to his lack of any likeability) is I think a powerful asset. People don't like a politician who appears overtly-"political".
Especially if Corbyn becomes Labour leader, might the Tories' preferred focus for 2020 be foreign policy rather than the economy?
For me, Philip Hammond is in the same category as Nicky Morgan.
I'm coming back round to the idea of Theresa May as the next Conservative leader. She has unquestionable experience, has mummy appeal and seems steady. The young cardinals might wish to elect an old pope as well. But first she'd need to make her peace with George Osborne.
If May became the next Tory leader, I think the Conservatives would have made a great decision. She's much better than Osborne.
She would be a disaster. Maggie without the charm, the real face of the nasty party.
She has a lot of charm. Would be a solid choice. One I have met.
Off topic. The reports of 3 police forces investigating Ted Heath starting to look ominous. Wilts, Met & Jersey.
There is no point in the police investigating an alleged crime by a dead person. That person cannot be put on trial. It is a total waste of time. And a waste of valuable police resources.
Not so. The children abused by Jimmy Savile no longer have to put up with him being revered in the media, they get to see him castigated for what he did. I don't think that is a waste of time
*Bangs head on desk*
They do not get to see him castigated for what he did. Because he is dead. And beyond any castigating.
It is not the job of the police to stop people being revered in the media. It really isn't. The job of the police is to keep order and investigate crimes. Crimes committed by living people. Who can then be brought to justice.
The police do not have infinite resources. They need to use them sensibly. Try telling a current victim: a 13-year old repeatedly subject to gang rape that the police in her area - let's call it Yorkshire - cannot investigate her allegations because they are too busy making sure that a dead person is no longer being revered. But never mind, eh, because in time she too may have the satisfaction of seeing her abusers no longer be revered or maybe by then she will have been too damaged and her life ruined and her abusers will have discarded her and got away with it and moved onto the next victims.
I'd bang your head on the desk harder, it might knock some sense into it
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
And that could and should have been achieved by journalists. You don't need the police to do that. You do not use the police to do other people's jobs. Not when they have their own vital job to do.
Someone very close to me was raped as a child - but not by a celebrity - and the police did the square root of f...all. Imagine how that child and her parents feel at seeing the police wasting their time investigating a dead celebrity, an investigation which can lead nowhere, just so that people can have the satisfaction of not having that person appear on TV. FFS!!!
Especially if Corbyn becomes Labour leader, might the Tories' preferred focus for 2020 be foreign policy rather than the economy?
For me, Philip Hammond is in the same category as Nicky Morgan.
I'm coming back round to the idea of Theresa May as the next Conservative leader. She has unquestionable experience, has mummy appeal and seems steady. The young cardinals might wish to elect an old pope as well. But first she'd need to make her peace with George Osborne.
Andy Burnham gave quite a thoughtful answer on Theresa May:
I have a lot of regard for Theresa May. I've found her to be decent and she honours what she says. That makes her quite formidable. Going down the pecking order, I think Osborne is a good politician, but this is his problem: he looks scheming and tactical and I think that's quite unappealing - it makes him easier to take on than people might realise. Of the three, I would least fear Boris. He seems to me to be somebody that the vast majority of the country would think: 'How out of touch is this bloke?' The things he gets away with now he wouldn't in the top job.
The perception that May does what she thinks is right for the country, rather than what's in her party's interests (as Osborne does, in addition to his lack of any likeability) is I think a powerful asset. People don't like a politician who appears overtly-"political".
George Osborne knows he has that defect in the public eye. He, like Ed Balls, is unusually self-aware for a senior politician.
It's the main reason why I still think he may well not go for the job.
Off topic. The reports of 3 police forces investigating Ted Heath starting to look ominous. Wilts, Met & Jersey.
There is no point in the police investigating an alleged crime by a dead person. That person cannot be put on trial. It is a total waste of time. And a waste of valuable police resources.
Not so. The children abused by Jimmy Savile no longer have to put up with him being revered in the media, they get to see him castigated for what he did. I don't think that is a waste of time
*Bangs head on desk*
They do not get to see him castigated for what he did. Because he is dead. And beyond any castigating.
It is not the job of the police to stop people being revered in the media. It really isn't. The job of the police is to keep order and investigate crimes. Crimes committed by living people. Who can then be brought to justice.
The police do not have infinite resources. They need to use them sensibly. Try telling a current victim: a 13-year old repeatedly subject to gang rape that the police in her area - let's call it Yorkshire - cannot investigate her allegations because they are too busy making sure that a dead person is no longer being revered. But never mind, eh, because in time she too may have the satisfaction of seeing her abusers no longer be revered or maybe by then she will have been too damaged and her life ruined and her abusers will have discarded her and got away with it and moved onto the next victims.
I'd bang your head on the desk harder, it might knock some sense into it
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
And that could and should have been achieved by journalists. You don't need the police to do that. You do not use the police to do other people's jobs. Not when they have their own vital job to do.
Someone very close to me was raped as a child - but not by a celebrity - and the police did the square root of f...all. Imagine how that child and her parents feel at seeing the police wasting their time investigating a dead celebrity, an investigation which can lead nowhere, just so that people can have the satisfaction of not having that person appear on TV. FFS!!!
The journalists need the police to prove the person alleged to have committed the crimes was guilty FFS!
They do not get to see him castigated for what he did. Because he is dead. And beyond any castigating.
It is not the job of the police to stop people being revered in the media. It really isn't. The job of the police is to keep order and investigate crimes. Crimes committed by living people. Who can then be brought to justice.
The police do not have infinite resources. They need to use them sensibly. Try telling a current victim: a 13-year old repeatedly subject to gang rape that the police in her area - let's call it Yorkshire - cannot investigate her allegations because they are too busy making sure that a dead person is no longer being revered. But never mind, eh, because in time she too may have the satisfaction of seeing her abusers no longer be revered or maybe by then she will have been too damaged and her life ruined and her abusers will have discarded her and got away with it and moved onto the next victims.
Again you're making a false, emotive comparison.
The Metropolitan Police (for example) have spent over £11 million (and counting https://govwaste.co.uk/ ) on beseiging Julian Assange. There is plenty of money there to investigate Rotherham as well as Heath's misdeeds. The problem with Rotherham is not one of resources, it is one of distorted principles. Exposing high level child abuse can only help in this cause.
Our political establishment may have been guilty, to the very top, of the most heinous crimes against children, within most adult's living memories, and you see no case for this being brought into the open? I'm not sure where you're coming from on this.
Cyclefree. I have to side with Lucky on this one for two reasons:
1. if the abuse were a part of a system or a clique, you have to ensure that that system/clique is no longer operational, and that the conditions that allowed it to flourish have been eliminated; 2. if there are living victims, they deserve to have the facts known.
And that is what the Goddard inquiry is for. Exactly that. As I have said - repeatedly. So that inquiry looks into historical matters. And, with luck, it can ensure that the causes of what happened have gone and cannot recur. And the police investigate alleged crimes by living people who can then, if the evidence is there, be prosecuted.
Is this hard to understand? I want people who have committed crimes to be investigated and prosecuted. I see no point trying to investigate dead people because you cannot establish the facts and you cannot prosecute.
Especially if Corbyn becomes Labour leader, might the Tories' preferred focus for 2020 be foreign policy rather than the economy?
For me, Philip Hammond is in the same category as Nicky Morgan.
I'm coming back round to the idea of Theresa May as the next Conservative leader. She has unquestionable experience, has mummy appeal and seems steady. The young cardinals might wish to elect an old pope as well. But first she'd need to make her peace with George Osborne.
If May became the next Tory leader, I think the Conservatives would have made a great decision. She's much better than Osborne.
She would be a disaster. Maggie without the charm, the real face of the nasty party.
"Yes, we've made progress, but let's not kid ourselves. There's a way to go before we can return to government. There's a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies, You know what some people call us: the nasty party," Mrs May told a stunned conference.
I honestly believe Theresa May is brilliant. I love what she done, especially in regard to the police in the Home Office. IMHO, she's by far the best HS the country has had in years.
EDIT: I think Burnham's analysis (on this occasion) is quite good, actually!
Especially if Corbyn becomes Labour leader, might the Tories' preferred focus for 2020 be foreign policy rather than the economy?
For me, Philip Hammond is in the same category as Nicky Morgan.
I'm coming back round to the idea of Theresa May as the next Conservative leader. She has unquestionable experience, has mummy appeal and seems steady. The young cardinals might wish to elect an old pope as well. But first she'd need to make her peace with George Osborne.
Andy Burnham gave quite a thoughtful answer on Theresa May:
I have a lot of regard for Theresa May. I've found her to be decent and she honours what she says. That makes her quite formidable. Going down the pecking order, I think Osborne is a good politician, but this is his problem: he looks scheming and tactical and I think that's quite unappealing - it makes him easier to take on than people might realise. Of the three, I would least fear Boris. He seems to me to be somebody that the vast majority of the country would think: 'How out of touch is this bloke?' The things he gets away with now he wouldn't in the top job.
The perception that May does what she thinks is right for the country, rather than what's in her party's interests (as Osborne does, in addition to his lack of any likeability) is I think a powerful asset. People don't like a politician who appears overtly-"political".
George Osborne knows he has that defect in the public eye. He, like Ed Balls, is unusually self-aware for a senior politician.
It's the main reason why I still think he may well not go for the job.
If Osborne isn't going for the job you have to wonder why he is doing a very Brownesque thing by building up a base of acolytes in powerful positions within the Conservative party. I think it's quite clear Osborne will attempt to bid for the top job. For a self-aware guy, he doesn't seem too aware of the similarities he has with Gordon Brown - seeing himself on the 'Blair' side of things, so to speak.
And that is what the Goddard inquiry is for. Exactly that. As I have said - repeatedly. So that inquiry looks into historical matters. And, with luck, it can ensure that the causes of what happened have gone and cannot recur. And the police investigate alleged crimes by living people who can then, if the evidence is there, be prosecuted.
Is this hard to understand? I want people who have committed crimes to be investigated and prosecuted. I see no point trying to investigate dead people because you cannot establish the facts and you cannot prosecute.
So how does an inquiry establish the facts? There has to be an investigation of some sort. Genuine question - if the police do not do the investigating, who does?
The journalists need the police to prove the person alleged to have committed the crimes was guilty FFS!
Just as when the accused is alive, it is not for the police to prove guilt or innocence. It is to investigate and gather sufficient evidence for guilty people to be tried and convicted.
There cannot be the successful prosecution of a dead person.
They do not get to see him castigated for what he did. Because he is dead. And beyond any castigating.
It is not the job of the police to stop people being revered in the media. It really isn't. The job of the police is to keep order and investigate crimes. Crimes committed by living people. Who can then be brought to justice.
The police do not have infinite resources. They need to use them sensibly. Try telling a current victim: a 13-year old repeatedly subject to gang rape that the police in her area - let's call it Yorkshire - cannot investigate her allegations because they are too busy making sure that a dead person is no longer being revered. But never mind, eh, because in time she too may have the satisfaction of seeing her abusers no longer be revered or maybe by then she will have been too damaged and her life ruined and her abusers will have discarded her and got away with it and moved onto the next victims.
Again you're making a false, emotive comparison.
The Metropolitan Police (for example) have spent over £11 million (and counting https://govwaste.co.uk/ ) on beseiging Julian Assange. There is plenty of money there to investigate Rotherham as well as Heath's misdeeds. The problem with Rotherham is not one of resources, it is one of distorted principles. Exposing high level child abuse can only help in this cause.
It is not a false comparison. There are actual victims now and actual abusers now who risk not getting police attention if that attention is diverted onto historical matters best addressed by others.
As for Assange, I do not know why the cost of guarding an embassy should be so humungous. But Assange too is wanted for allegations of rape. These are serious allegations and those who see him as some sort of hero (I don't know whether you are) would be best advised, IMO, telling him to answer the allegations rather than doing his prima donna act in South Kensington, or wherever he is.
No business or organisation has unlimited resources. There needs to be prioritisation.
Would we be asking the police to spend x to investigate claims against a dead non-celebrity?
Well part of the answer there surely is that if the person accused wasn't a celebrity, there wouldn't have been a cover up in the first place, and they'd have been arrested when alive
No business or organisation has unlimited resources. There needs to be prioritisation.
Would we be asking the police to spend x to investigate claims against a dead non-celebrity?
Children currently suffering abuse in Kent, Wiltshire and Jersey must be overjoyed to see their local police forces directing resources to investigate allegations against a dead man, rather than active deviants.
You can bet that the decent coppers dealing with these horrific crimes would rather be going after the living too.
Especially if Corbyn becomes Labour leader, might the Tories' preferred focus for 2020 be foreign policy rather than the economy?
For me, Philip Hammond is in the same category as Nicky Morgan.
I'm coming back round to the idea of Theresa May as the next Conservative leader. She has unquestionable experience, has mummy appeal and seems steady. The young cardinals might wish to elect an old pope as well. But first she'd need to make her peace with George Osborne.
Andy Burnham gave quite a thoughtful answer on Theresa May:
I have a lot of regard for Theresa May. I've found her to be decent and she honours what she says. That makes her quite formidable. Going down the pecking order, I think Osborne is a good politician, but this is his problem: he looks scheming and tactical and I think that's quite unappealing - it makes him easier to take on than people might realise. Of the three, I would least fear Boris. He seems to me to be somebody that the vast majority of the country would think: 'How out of touch is this bloke?' The things he gets away with now he wouldn't in the top job.
The perception that May does what she thinks is right for the country, rather than what's in her party's interests (as Osborne does, in addition to his lack of any likeability) is I think a powerful asset. People don't like a politician who appears overtly-"political".
George Osborne knows he has that defect in the public eye. He, like Ed Balls, is unusually self-aware for a senior politician.
It's the main reason why I still think he may well not go for the job.
If Osborne isn't going for the job you have to wonder why he is doing a very Brownesque thing by building up a base of acolytes in powerful positions within the Conservative party. I think it's quite clear Osborne will attempt to bid for the top job. For a self-aware guy, he doesn't seem too aware of the similarities he has with Gordon Brown - seeing himself on the 'Blair' side of things, so to speak.
What do I think he's doing? I think he's making sure that the new leader, whoever he or she is, will be beholden to him.
He didn't stand in 2005 when Michael Howard wanted him to, judging that David Cameron would be better at the job. He may have changed his mind since but he seems to be having all the fun he wants as Chancellor of the Exchequer right now.
Off topic. The reports of 3 police forces investigating Ted Heath starting to look ominous. Wilts, Met & Jersey.
How in God's name can you investigate a dead man? You can't. And it is pointless doing so. There is an inquiry led by Judge Lowell Goddard. She should be looking at this. The police should be concentrating on catching current paedophiles and other criminals.
Otherwise in our attempt to deal with the harm caused by long dead people to other people 50 or more years ago we will overlook the harm currently being done to youngsters now by people who can be stopped, caught, prosecuted and punished.
Call me an idealist but police investigations should not be done half a century after the events in question.
There are grooming gangs still operating in Rotherham, according to reports. Let's focus on stopping them. And elsewhere.
The idea that there are no resources both to investigate both the historical alleged crimes of politicians and the current crimes of civilians is a false one. Both must be investigated with due (or as it would appear overdue) rigour. Investigating one does not lead to ignoring the other - quite the opposite infact.
Of course crimes should be investigated at the time, but if they are not, they must obviously be investigated later - to suggest otherwise is like saying someone shouldn't do an adult education course because they should have learned woodwork at school.
With regard to the other comments here by hard-done-by Conservative party supporters, the story about Heath broke last year, and you can't libel the dead, yet it's taken this IPCC investigation before even a sniff of it has reached the newspapers. I'd hardly call that trial by media, and I find it hardly surprising that now the muzzle has been taken off, they are responding to legitimate public interest in what may turn out to be a seismic political scandal.
There is no point in the police investigating an alleged crime by a dead person. That person cannot be put on trial. It is a total waste of time. And a waste of valuable police resources.
Our political establishment may have been guilty, to the very top, of the most heinous crimes against children, within most adult's living memories, and you see no case for this being brought into the open? I'm not sure where you're coming from on this.
I have said - repeatedly - that this is the job of the Goddard inquiry. And the job of the police is to investigate living people who can, if the evidence is there, be brought to justice.
I'm coming down on your side of the debate here. It's not the police's job here to do anything other than investigate - closure for victims of dead celebrities is not their purpose.
We have an Inq to do that. There are plenty of living people - who may also be politicians of one sort or another - on the police's radar. If there is a secret Westminster paedo ring, one will most likely lead to another, just has it has in other cases.
I've no problem with the dead being mentioned as possible perpetrators - it's upsetting for their friends and family, but they're dead. I'm much more concerned about those still alive who could be destroyed by accusations that are no more than gossip. Following Savile, the reluctance of victims to come forward seems to have dwindled significantly. So if they have a case, I hope they report it to the police with confidence.
Off topic. The reports of 3 police forces investigating Ted Heath starting to look ominous. Wilts, Met & Jersey.
There is no point in the police investigating an alleged crime by a dead person. That person cannot be put on trial. It is a total waste of time. And a waste of valuable police resources.
snip
I'd bang your head on the desk harder, it might knock some sense into it
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
And that could and should have been achieved by journalists. You don't need the police to do that. You do not use the police to do other people's jobs. Not when they have their own vital job to do.
Someone very close to me was raped as a child - but not by a celebrity - and the police did the square root of f...all. Imagine how that child and her parents feel at seeing the police wasting their time investigating a dead celebrity, an investigation which can lead nowhere, just so that people can have the satisfaction of not having that person appear on TV. FFS!!!
"Yes, we've made progress, but let's not kid ourselves. There's a way to go before we can return to government. There's a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies, You know what some people call us: the nasty party," Mrs May told a stunned conference.
I honestly can't stand Priti Patel. Like Osborne, she nearly always has her smug face on.
To be honest, I cannot see anyone on that list who I could consider voting for. They are all pretty repellent, with BoJo and Osborne being least objectionable, but not by much.
They do not get to see him castigated for what he did. Because he is dead. And beyond any castigating.
It is not the job of the police to stop people being revered in the media. It really isn't. The job of the police is to keep order and investigate crimes. Crimes committed by living people. Who can then be brought to justice.
The police do not have infinite resources. They need to use them sensibly. Try telling a current victim: a 13-year old repeatedly subject to gang rape that the police in her area - let's call it Yorkshire - cannot investigate her allegations because they are too busy making sure that a dead person is no longer being revered. But never mind, eh, because in time she too may have the satisfaction of seeing her abusers no longer be revered or maybe by then she will have been too damaged and her life ruined and her abusers will have discarded her and got away with it and moved onto the next victims.
Again you're making a false, emotive comparison.
The Metropolitan Police (for example) have spent over £11 million (and counting https://govwaste.co.uk/ ) on beseiging Julian Assange. There is plenty of money there to investigate Rotherham as well as Heath's misdeeds. The problem with Rotherham is not one of resources, it is one of distorted principles. Exposing high level child abuse can only help in this cause.
Julian Assange, wanted for questioning over one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of lesser-degree rape alleged to have been committed against two women during a visit to Sweden in August 2010. That one?
You've mentioned this a couple of times and I don't agree with your analysis.
I think Osborne is establishing a legacy of people [fellow travelers] who will keep the flame burning once he's left the stage. He has more self-awareness in his little finger, than Brown had in his whole body. He's a kingmaker/chess player like Mandy IMO.
Especially if Corbyn becomes Labour leader, might the Tories' preferred focus for 2020 be foreign policy rather than the economy?
For me, Philip Hammond is in the same category as Nicky Morgan.
I'm coming back round to the idea of Theresa May as the next Conservative leader. She has unquestionable experience, has mummy appeal and seems steady. The young cardinals might wish to elect an old pope as well. But first she'd need to make her peace with George Osborne.
Andy Burnham gave quite a thoughtful answer on Theresa May:
I have a lot of regard for Theresa May. I've found her to be decent and she honours what she says. That makes her quite formidable. Going down the pecking order, I think Osborne is a good politician, but this is his problem: he looks scheming and tactical and I think that's quite unappealing - it makes him easier to take on than people might realise. Of the three, I would least fear Boris. He seems to me to be somebody that the vast majority of the country would think: 'How out of touch is this bloke?' The things he gets away with now he wouldn't in the top job.
The perception that May does what she thinks is right for the country, rather than what's in her party's interests (as Osborne does, in addition to his lack of any likeability) is I think a powerful asset. People don't like a politician who appears overtly-"political".
George Osborne knows he has that defect in the public eye. He, like Ed Balls, is unusually self-aware for a senior politician.
It's the main reason why I still think he may well not go for the job.
If Osborne isn't going for the job you have to wonder why he is doing a very Brownesque thing by building up a base of acolytes in powerful positions within the Conservative party. I think it's quite clear Osborne will attempt to bid for the top job. For a self-aware guy, he doesn't seem too aware of the similarities he has with Gordon Brown - seeing himself on the 'Blair' side of things, so to speak.
There is no point in the police investigating an alleged crime by a dead person. That person cannot be put on trial. It is a total waste of time. And a waste of valuable police resources.
All true Mrs. Free but you must also look at these matters from the point of view of the police officers involved. Getting onto a team investigating someone like Heath about events that may or may not have taken place fifty years ago is to a copper like winning the professional jackpot.
First off, there will be no requirement to deal with nasty people who might become violent or otherwise difficult. That said, there will probably be some elderly and/or frail people to interview which should allow for some good low level bullying.
Secondly, the job is basically 9 to 5 Monday to Friday with no need for anti-social hours. However, it will require a lot of traveling around so there will be plenty of overtime and expenses to be claimed. The fact that four or five forces have now joined in, is fantastic - the co-ordination meetings alone will require many hotel stays and discussions in the bar (that Jersey has joined in just pure gravy).
Thirdly, nobody really expects results. So there are no performance indicators to worry about and no stress. Just potter about taking statements and trace potential witnesses and everyone will be happy, and with care you should be able to spin it out for years.
No, Mrs Free from the coppers point of view the Heath enquiry is a godsend and detectives will be fighting to get on it.
Thank you Mr Llama. On a difficult subject you made me smile.
He didn't stand in 2005 when Michael Howard wanted him to, judging that David Cameron would be better at the job. He may have changed his mind since but he seems to be having all the fun he wants as Chancellor of the Exchequer right now.
True, but at that point I don't even think Osborne thought he would be ready to be Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, let alone leader. This is the guy who introduced his team as 'Matt from the BoE' (Hancock) and Rupert from the IFS (Harrison) etc to people, to talk himself up....
At this moment Osborne is arguably a far more confident figure than previously. It's also about timing. In 2005 how many friends did Osborne have in the Conservative party in comparison to now? On top of that, Cameron was five years older than Osborne - who was only 34 (young in political years) in 2005. Someone like Osborne, who has good foresight I suspect saw that at the time Cameron was better, and more experienced for the job - and that it was far better to work with him, than endure a fractured relationship that a rivalry between friends would cause (Tony and Gordon anyone?). Now, it's questionable whether Osborne thinks that there is a better candidate for himself. His attempts to take on a statesmanly demeanour in PMQs some weeks ago, is another indicative of his own leadership bid. It also suggests some of the self-awareness you stay, in regard to Osborne being aware that he can be portrayed in a scheming, self-interested light.
There's the argument you mention that Osborne wants the next leader be bolden to him, but there's no clear person, or even people who he is grooming right now for that role. I reckon someone like Osborne sees himself as a better bet than Boris, who is terrible at networking and who is quite a vacuous personality when it comes down to it. He may well think he can beat May due to the cult of youth in politics, as well as perhaps a desire for continuity in the Conservative party. And he may well, like Brown not be betting on any of his acolytes to challenge him because they are dependent on the Osborne gravy train for her own career prospects.
They do not get to see him castigated for what he did. Because he is dead. And beyond any castigating.
It is not the job of the police to stop people being revered in the media. It really isn't. The job of the police is to keep order and investigate crimes. Crimes committed by living people. Who can then be brought to justice.
The police do not have infinite resources. They need to use them sensibly. Try telling a current victim: a 13-year old repeatedly subject to gang rape that the police in her area - let's call it Yorkshire - cannot investigate her allegations because they are too busy making sure that a dead person is no longer being revered. But never mind, eh, because in time she too may have the satisfaction of seeing her abusers no longer be revered or maybe by then she will have been too damaged and her life ruined and her abusers will have discarded her and got away with it and moved onto the next victims.
Again you're making a false, emotive comparison.
The Metropolitan Police (for example) have spent over £11 million (and counting https://govwaste.co.uk/ ) on beseiging Julian Assange. There is plenty of money there to investigate Rotherham as well as Heath's misdeeds. The problem with Rotherham is not one of resources, it is one of distorted principles. Exposing high level child abuse can only help in this cause.
Julian Assange, wanted for questioning over one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of lesser-degree rape alleged to have been committed against two women during a visit to Sweden in August 2010. That one?
The Assange who is under investigation for sexual offences, but using his diplomatic and media connections to prevent a proper investigation and trial? Now where have we heard that happen before?
Cameron is a blend of Boris and Osbo, like Osbo Cameron can tone down the poshness and isn't bad on detail. Cameron also has a dose of Boris's charisma - but isn't OTT.
Obso lacks charisma and has a rather sneering style of delivery, which works well in the commons but I don't think it would come over well in the televised debates.
Boris has buckets of charisma but isn't good on detail and is unable to tone down his poshness.
On balance I guess Osbo is the best bet unless a more charismatic character appears from the lower ranks - the EU referendum may shake out somebody I guess.
You've mentioned this a couple of times and I don't agree with your analysis.
I think Osborne is establishing a legacy of people [fellow travelers] who will keep the flame burning once he's left the stage. He has more self-awareness in his little finger, than Brown had in his whole body. He's a kingmaker/chess player like Mandy IMO.
I don't agree. Osborne loves Blair far more than Mandelson, who he doesn't appear to have that much time for. In regard to Osborne having more awareness than Brown, he is pursuing the exact same strategy as Brown in regard to making political decisions above all else as chancellor.
They do not get to see him castigated for what he did. Because he is dead. And beyond any castigating.
It is not the job of the police to stop people being revered in the media. It really isn't. The job of the police is to keep order and investigate crimes. Crimes committed by living people. Who can then be brought to justice.
The police do not have infinite resources. They need to use them sensibly. Try telling a current victim: a 13-year old repeatedly subject to gang rape that the police in her area - let's call it Yorkshire - cannot investigate her allegations because they are too busy making sure that a dead person is no longer being revered. But never mind, eh, because in time she too may have the satisfaction of seeing her abusers no longer be revered or maybe by then she will have been too damaged and her life ruined and her abusers will have discarded her and got away with it and moved onto the next victims.
Again you're making a false, emotive comparison.
The Metropolitan Police (for example) have spent over £11 million (and counting https://govwaste.co.uk/ ) on beseiging Julian Assange. There is plenty of money there to investigate Rotherham as well as Heath's misdeeds. The problem with Rotherham is not one of resources, it is one of distorted principles. Exposing high level child abuse can only help in this cause.
Julian Assange, wanted for questioning over one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of lesser-degree rape alleged to have been committed against two women during a visit to Sweden in August 2010. That one?
The Assange who is under investigation for sexual offences, but using his diplomatic and media connections to prevent a proper investigation and trial? Now where have we heard that happen before?
Ecuador and Sweden should sort out the bloody policing of the embassy betwen themselves !
@Plato - The only difference between the follicle challenged and those that shave is the level of vanity – and that is where my expertise on the subject comes to an end I'm afraid – BTW.
Order of rank: Major, Lieutenant Colonel, (full) Colonel – Lt. Colonel often called half Colonels.
... Commanding officers of Regiments and large units are normally Lieutenant Colonels...
Not wishing to be pedantic Mr. St Clare, but Mr. Flaming Picky would like to point out that statement is only true for certain branches of the army.
A Lt. Colonel will command an infantry battalion but an infantry regiment can have multiple battalions. The regiment as a whole will not have a Lt. Colonel in command, that role, in as much as exists, is filled by a colonel in chief (usually these days a member of the Royal family or a General). However as an infantry regiment will never fight as such the position is ceremonial rather than active.
Artillery Regiments are of course command by Half-Colonel, but the Royal Regiment of Artillery is not actually a Regiment it is a Corps. However despite being a corps it is not commanded by a Lieutenant-General (as were corps in active service) but has, in fact, a Captain General, who is currently Her Majesty the Queen, and a MasterGunner, St James's Park (a General).
Another Corps is, or rather was, the Kings Royal Rifle Corps, which wasn't a corps it was an infantry regiment with battalions commanded by Half-colonels. There still are some proper corps floating around, though not as many as there were (The Royal Dental Corps being particularly missed) and these normally have subordinate regiments which may, depending on size and role be commanded by half-colonels. The Royal Tank Regiment is, of course, a corps and not a regiment so the above apply.
Then there is the cavalry, and what goes on over there is no one's business but their own and frankly, not a subject for polite society.
@Plato - The only difference between the follicle challenged and those that shave is the level of vanity – and that is where my expertise on the subject comes to an end I'm afraid – BTW.
Order of rank: Major, Lieutenant Colonel, (full) Colonel – Lt. Colonel often called half Colonels.
... Commanding officers of Regiments and large units are normally Lieutenant Colonels...
Not wishing to be pedantic Mr. St Clare, but Mr. Flaming Picky would like to point out that statement is only true for certain branches of the army.
A Lt. Colonel will command an infantry battalion but an infantry regiment can have multiple battalions. The regiment as a whole will not have a Lt. Colonel in command, that role, in as much as exists, is filled by a colonel in chief (usually these days a member of the Royal family or a General). However as an infantry regiment will never fight as such the position is ceremonial rather than active.
Artillery Regiments are of course command by Half-Colonel, but the Royal Regiment of Artillery is not actually a Regiment it is a Corps. However despite being a corps it is not commanded by a Lieutenant-General (as were corps in active service) but has, in fact, a Captain General, who is currently Her Majesty the Queen, and a MasterGunner, St James's Park (a General).
Another Corps is, or rather was, the Kings Royal Rifle Corps, which wasn't a corps it was an infantry regiment with battalions commanded by Half-colonels. There still are some proper corps floating around, though not as many as there were (The Royal Dental Corps being particularly missed) and these normally have subordinate regiments which may, depending on size and role be commanded by half-colonels. The Royal Tank Regiment is, of course, a corps and not a regiment so the above apply.
Then there is the cavalry, and what goes on over there is no one's business but their own and frankly, not a subject for polite society.
@antifrank I am very late to the party as usual and I've just read your header to the previous thread. Many thanks for another very interesting article.
@Sunil_Prasannan I don't agree it's weasel words - May is hardly going to be specific in terms of figures and demographics calling the Conservatives the 'nasty party' in such a speech. Arguably, when you look at the modernisation programme, and Cameron's attempts to make the Conservatives seem a more inclusive, friendly party - that shows many in the party were clearly aware of how they were perceived.
@foxinsoxuk I actually find BoJo and Osborne to be on the 'most objectionable' end of the scale. The only figure more objectionable is Liam Fox, who is about is endearing as host of rats.
OT Mr Llama, thought you may know the answer to this. I'm watching League of Gentlemen for the umpteenth time and Jack Hawkins' character says he made Half Colonel.
Mr. Llama, when was the last time we had a bald PM?
Churchill, probably. But then Wilson was not exactly hirsute and, from memory, Callaghan was "thinning" (I once stood above him at the Grand Hotel in Brighton). Additionally, in days of yore there was not this fashion for shaven heads to disguise incipient baldness and the TV people were a lot more deferential.
All of which is a nonsense. If a PM potential PM is to be discarded because of how much hair he/she has then we might as well go back to the days of barbarian kings and go for election by combat, and may the biggest thug win.
I am by no means an expert on military history, so doubtless Mr Llama will correct me, but I think there are two uses of the term (neither technically correct)
1. Brevet Colonel, as a battlefield appointment, to the senior surviving major if there were no more senior surviving officers gave them command of the regiment until such time as the post was confirmed by House Guards or a replacement sent. They were sometimes called Half Colonels.
2. Colonels with rank, but without a regiment (especially in peace time) were sometimes sent on extended furlough as Colonels-on-half-pay, also known informally as half-colonels
OT Mr Llama, thought you may know the answer to this. I'm watching League of Gentlemen for the umpteenth time and Jack Hawkins' character says he made Half Colonel.
Mr. Llama, when was the last time we had a bald PM?
Churchill, probably. But then Wilson was not exactly hirsute and, from memory, Callaghan was "thinning" (I once stood above him at the Grand Hotel in Brighton). Additionally, in days of yore there was not this fashion for shaven heads to disguise incipient baldness and the TV people were a lot more deferential.
All of which is a nonsense. If a PM potential PM is to be discarded because of how much hair he/she has then we might as well go back to the days of barbarian kings and go for election by combat, and may the biggest thug win.
I am by no means an expert on military history, so doubtless Mr Llama will correct me, but I think there are two uses of the term (neither technically correct)
1. Brevet Colonel, as a battlefield appointment, to the senior surviving major if there were no more senior surviving officers gave them command of the regiment until such time as the post was confirmed by House Guards or a replacement sent. They were sometimes called Half Colonels.
2. Colonels with rank, but without a regiment (especially in peace time) were sometimes sent on extended furlough as Colonels-on-half-pay, also known informally as half-colonels
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
The key point for me is to respect the victims of crime. Part of that is to get official recognition that they really ARE victims. For this, it doesn't matter whether the perpetrator of the crime is alive or dead. The only thing that matters is that the facts come to light.
The police will prioritize their resources accordingly, as of course they must, and some crimes will be investigated more vigorously than others. That is how it should be. The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous.
Man of the People, Armani Burnham. More from that GQ intv. The 25yrs thing is so transparent!
Nick Carvell, Fashion Editor of GQ.co.uk, notes that off-the-peg Armani suit 'tends to start at around £800', although in a sale Mr Burnham might get a discount of between 30 and 70 per cent off. Mr Carvell added: 'The thing is, it's also not as expensive as it could be. After all, to get a suit made - favoured by many of our leaders throughout history - a politician would have to stump up a minimum of £1,200 to £3,000.'
Embarrassingly the admission came moments after accusing Boris Johnson of being 'out of touch'.
'He seems to me to be somebody that the vast majority of the country would think: 'How out of touch is this bloke?' The things he gets away with now he wouldn't in the top job.'
Mr Burnham also suggested that after a quarter of a century in politics - in an apparent swipe at Mr Corbyn has been in the Commons for 32 years.
Miss Plato, baldness in men is caused by superior operation of the brain consuming all available energy, and not having the excess used by other men to grow a roof garden.
Women, of course, are able to multi-task and engage in both optimal thinking and follicle foliage without difficulty.
[I started shaving my head early this year as my hair was thinning substantially and it was looking rubbish. This has also improved my aerodynamics and enhanced my top speed].
Comments
All of which is a nonsense. If a PM potential PM is to be discarded because of how much hair he/she has then we might as well go back to the days of barbarian kings and go for election by combat, and may the biggest thug win.
Mr Attlee.[EDIT] Mr Churchill (Though Mr. Blair had a bald face - as in "bald faced liar")Yes, pretty much spot on. Its not good enough for Mr Palmer to plead that civil wars sometimes end when both sides have had their bellyful of killing.
How do you do that?
I just keep seeing Bernie Grant in my minds-eye and he's been gone for ages.
Here's mine:
1. Restoring public health with new guidelines and advice following traditional dietary habits
2. Leaving the EU, a new codified British constitution and a settling period of 5 years before forming any other treaty based alliances
3. Neutrality in all foreign conflicts where Britain's interests were not directly affected
4. Restoring a favourable balance of trade
5. A gradual rolling back of state dependency and where possible the state's role entirely in every area of British life
Order of rank: Major, Lieutenant Colonel, (full) Colonel – Lt. Colonel often called half Colonels.
George Osborne: closely tied to David Cameron, unclear whether he actually wants the job, hasn't got the common touch and knows it.
Sajid Javid: has the backstory, has a brain, needs to be seen by the public more to see whether he's ready for primetime. Doesn't justify the price - yet.
Boris Johnson: a leader for opposition not government. Needs to do something spectacular to change this.
Liam Fox: dear God no. Surely even the Tories aren't that stupid?
Theresa May: competent, dull, old.
Michael Gove: see Liam Fox.
Jeremy Hunt: resembles a daytime TV doctor who has to tell you that he is going to give you a proctoscope. Fails the Vladimir Putin test.
Nicky Morgan: like most people, I couldn't pick her out of an identity parade. Her possible route to leader resembles Fortinbras's.
The only clear bet is to lay Boris Johnson.
Women, of course, are able to multi-task and engage in both optimal thinking and follicle foliage without difficulty.
[I started shaving my head early this year as my hair was thinning substantially and it was looking rubbish. This has also improved my aerodynamics and enhanced my top speed].
First off, there will be no requirement to deal with nasty people who might become violent or otherwise difficult. That said, there will probably be some elderly and/or frail people to interview which should allow for some good low level bullying.
Secondly, the job is basically 9 to 5 Monday to Friday with no need for anti-social hours. However, it will require a lot of traveling around so there will be plenty of overtime and expenses to be claimed. The fact that four or five forces have now joined in, is fantastic - the co-ordination meetings alone will require many hotel stays and discussions in the bar (that Jersey has joined in just pure gravy).
Thirdly, nobody really expects results. So there are no performance indicators to worry about and no stress. Just potter about taking statements and trace potential witnesses and everyone will be happy, and with care you should be able to spin it out for years.
No, Mrs Free from the coppers point of view the Heath enquiry is a godsend and detectives will be fighting to get on it.
They do not get to see him castigated for what he did. Because he is dead. And beyond any castigating.
It is not the job of the police to stop people being revered in the media. It really isn't. The job of the police is to keep order and investigate crimes. Crimes committed by living people. Who can then be brought to justice.
The police do not have infinite resources. They need to use them sensibly. Try telling a current victim: a 13-year old repeatedly subject to gang rape that the police in her area - let's call it Yorkshire - cannot investigate her allegations because they are too busy making sure that a dead person is no longer being revered. But never mind, eh, because in time she too may have the satisfaction of seeing her abusers no longer be revered or maybe by then she will have been too damaged and her life ruined and her abusers will have discarded her and got away with it and moved onto the next victims.
Though he later became more and more "receding".
Police that seem more keen on twitter and facebook crime than burglary or muggings...
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/british-police-enforcers-of-the-therapeutic-state/17248#.VcDsJhBwbqB
1. if the abuse were a part of a system or a clique, you have to ensure that that system/clique is no longer operational, and that the conditions that allowed it to flourish have been eliminated;
2. if there are living victims, they deserve to have the facts known.
1) War with France
2) Trebuchet-based justice system
3) Political incompetents to be fired into the heart of the sun from some sort of giant space cannon
4) Genetic creation of the enormo-haddock army
5) Construction of a small fleet of Death Stars, entirely for defensive purposes
Or, if we're being serious:
1) Defence spending increased
2) STEM subjects having zero tuition fees, with tax breaks and so forth to encourage science and engineering projects and businesses to start and stay here
3) Leave the EU
4) An English Parliament
5) Removing VAT from e-books
[I might alter that if I were spending lots of time giving it serious thought, but they're all valid points, I think].
The Metropolitan Police (for example) have spent over £11 million (and counting https://govwaste.co.uk/ ) on beseiging Julian Assange. There is plenty of money there to investigate Rotherham as well as Heath's misdeeds. The problem with Rotherham is not one of resources, it is one of distorted principles. Exposing high level child abuse can only help in this cause.
Especially if Corbyn becomes Labour leader, might the Tories' preferred focus for 2020 be foreign policy rather than the economy?
Mr. T, don't despair.
You at least wear glasses, right?
And if the rumours turn out to be a load of rubbish, it would be good for public confidence in the political system if they were scotched once and for all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_comparative_military_ranks
Well worth your eyeballs for an hour. The context of the Qin making incompetence a crime was fascinating.
If you were a child raped by a now dead celebrity who was seen laughing and joking with young children on tv repeats, I think you'd be pleased when the time came that people spat at the mention of his name
(1) usually put forward by keen motorists.
I'm coming back round to the idea of Theresa May as the next Conservative leader. She has unquestionable experience, has mummy appeal and seems steady. The young cardinals might wish to elect an old pope as well. But first she'd need to make her peace with George Osborne.
But, whilst I'm procrastinating, by chance I'm re-reading Zhuge Liang and Liu Ji's commentaries on Sun Tzu's Art of War, which has lots of references to the past including the Qin dynasty [well, 'dynasty' might be generous, it didn't last too long, but did pave the way for the Han].
"Mum's fury after baby 'circumcised by doctor without her permission' as police launch probe"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mums-fury-after-baby-circumcised-6185598
2. A foreign policy with humanitarianism and the basic equality of human beings as its guiding principle
3. A domestic policy with economic and environmental sustainability as its guiding principle
4. Ensure everyone is equipped and enabled to contribute to society however they can, and no-one is left 'on the scrapheap'
5. A respect for individual civil liberties*, and a recognition that power and control corrupt at all levels
A similar thing happens in the Army with generals. You'll probably know that Lieutenants is rank two down from Majors. Well we have Generals, Lieutenant Generals and Major Generals in that order of seniority, i.e. a Lieutenant_General outranks a Major-General. We used also to have Brigadier-Generals (the Septics still do) but now we just have Brigadiers - the title General was removed in the late Victorian reforms to save money.
In the case of sexual offences - well, pretty much all crimes, but those especially - the sooner after the alleged offence you investigate the greater the chances of success. You have a greater chance of getting corroborative evidence, good quality forensic evidence and better memories. The longer you wait, the harder it is. And, critically, the alleged criminal can go on committing more crimes and others, tempted to do the same thing, calculate that they have little chance of being caught.
The police are not there to provide therapy for victims nor are they a branch of journalism. Primarily they are there to investigate and prevent crime.
Not sure Osborne would in truth, but he'd be a damned sight better choice than Boris, Fox, May, Gove, Hunt or Morgan.
Though I do wonder what voters would do if the main 2020 battle was between newly imposed PM Boris and an "exceeding-all-expectations-in-the-polls-and-therefore-they're-stuck-with-him" Labour leader Corbyn!
The perception that May does what she thinks is right for the country, rather than what's in her party's interests (as Osborne does, in addition to his lack of any likeability) is I think a powerful asset. People don't like a politician who appears overtly-"political".
Someone very close to me was raped as a child - but not by a celebrity - and the police did the square root of f...all. Imagine how that child and her parents feel at seeing the police wasting their time investigating a dead celebrity, an investigation which can lead nowhere, just so that people can have the satisfaction of not having that person appear on TV. FFS!!!
The perception that May does what she thinks is right for the country, rather than what's in her party's interests (as Osborne does, in addition to his lack of any likeability) is I think a powerful asset. People don't like a politician who appears overtly-"political".
George Osborne knows he has that defect in the public eye. He, like Ed Balls, is unusually self-aware for a senior politician.
It's the main reason why I still think he may well not go for the job.
Would we be asking the police to spend x to investigate claims against a dead non-celebrity?
Is this hard to understand? I want people who have committed crimes to be investigated and prosecuted. I see no point trying to investigate dead people because you cannot establish the facts and you cannot prosecute.
In 2002:
"Yes, we've made progress, but let's not kid ourselves. There's a way to go before we can return to government. There's a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies, You know what some people call us: the nasty party," Mrs May told a stunned conference.
I honestly believe Theresa May is brilliant. I love what she done, especially in regard to the police in the Home Office. IMHO, she's by far the best HS the country has had in years.
EDIT: I think Burnham's analysis (on this occasion) is quite good, actually!
Off topic - I'm on holiday in Portugal and it is very nice.
It's the main reason why I still think he may well not go for the job.
If Osborne isn't going for the job you have to wonder why he is doing a very Brownesque thing by building up a base of acolytes in powerful positions within the Conservative party. I think it's quite clear Osborne will attempt to bid for the top job. For a self-aware guy, he doesn't seem too aware of the similarities he has with Gordon Brown - seeing himself on the 'Blair' side of things, so to speak.
There cannot be the successful prosecution of a dead person.
As for Assange, I do not know why the cost of guarding an embassy should be so humungous. But Assange too is wanted for allegations of rape. These are serious allegations and those who see him as some sort of hero (I don't know whether you are) would be best advised, IMO, telling him to answer the allegations rather than doing his prima donna act in South Kensington, or wherever he is.
You can bet that the decent coppers dealing with these horrific crimes would rather be going after the living too.
What do I think he's doing? I think he's making sure that the new leader, whoever he or she is, will be beholden to him.
He didn't stand in 2005 when Michael Howard wanted him to, judging that David Cameron would be better at the job. He may have changed his mind since but he seems to be having all the fun he wants as Chancellor of the Exchequer right now.
I cannot be clearer than that.
We have an Inq to do that. There are plenty of living people - who may also be politicians of one sort or another - on the police's radar. If there is a secret Westminster paedo ring, one will most likely lead to another, just has it has in other cases.
I've no problem with the dead being mentioned as possible perpetrators - it's upsetting for their friends and family, but they're dead. I'm much more concerned about those still alive who could be destroyed by accusations that are no more than gossip. Following Savile, the reluctance of victims to come forward seems to have dwindled significantly. So if they have a case, I hope they report it to the police with confidence.
Which people? How many?
Weasel Words
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
I think Osborne is establishing a legacy of people [fellow travelers] who will keep the flame burning once he's left the stage. He has more self-awareness in his little finger, than Brown had in his whole body. He's a kingmaker/chess player like Mandy IMO. If Osborne isn't going for the job you have to wonder why he is doing a very Brownesque thing by building up a base of acolytes in powerful positions within the Conservative party. I think it's quite clear Osborne will attempt to bid for the top job. For a self-aware guy, he doesn't seem too aware of the similarities he has with Gordon Brown - seeing himself on the 'Blair' side of things, so to speak.
Or maybe even a Tory witch hunt
At this moment Osborne is arguably a far more confident figure than previously. It's also about timing. In 2005 how many friends did Osborne have in the Conservative party in comparison to now? On top of that, Cameron was five years older than Osborne - who was only 34 (young in political years) in 2005. Someone like Osborne, who has good foresight I suspect saw that at the time Cameron was better, and more experienced for the job - and that it was far better to work with him, than endure a fractured relationship that a rivalry between friends would cause (Tony and Gordon anyone?). Now, it's questionable whether Osborne thinks that there is a better candidate for himself. His attempts to take on a statesmanly demeanour in PMQs some weeks ago, is another indicative of his own leadership bid. It also suggests some of the self-awareness you stay, in regard to Osborne being aware that he can be portrayed in a scheming, self-interested light.
There's the argument you mention that Osborne wants the next leader be bolden to him, but there's no clear person, or even people who he is grooming right now for that role. I reckon someone like Osborne sees himself as a better bet than Boris, who is terrible at networking and who is quite a vacuous personality when it comes down to it. He may well think he can beat May due to the cult of youth in politics, as well as perhaps a desire for continuity in the Conservative party. And he may well, like Brown not be betting on any of his acolytes to challenge him because they are dependent on the Osborne gravy train for her own career prospects.
Obso lacks charisma and has a rather sneering style of delivery, which works well in the commons but I don't think it would come over well in the televised debates.
Boris has buckets of charisma but isn't good on detail and is unable to tone down his poshness.
On balance I guess Osbo is the best bet unless a more charismatic character appears from the lower ranks - the EU referendum may shake out somebody I guess.
A Lt. Colonel will command an infantry battalion but an infantry regiment can have multiple battalions. The regiment as a whole will not have a Lt. Colonel in command, that role, in as much as exists, is filled by a colonel in chief (usually these days a member of the Royal family or a General). However as an infantry regiment will never fight as such the position is ceremonial rather than active.
Artillery Regiments are of course command by Half-Colonel, but the Royal Regiment of Artillery is not actually a Regiment it is a Corps. However despite being a corps it is not commanded by a Lieutenant-General (as were corps in active service) but has, in fact, a Captain General, who is currently Her Majesty the Queen, and a MasterGunner, St James's Park (a General).
Another Corps is, or rather was, the Kings Royal Rifle Corps, which wasn't a corps it was an infantry regiment with battalions commanded by Half-colonels. There still are some proper corps floating around, though not as many as there were (The Royal Dental Corps being particularly missed) and these normally have subordinate regiments which may, depending on size and role be commanded by half-colonels. The Royal Tank Regiment is, of course, a corps and not a regiment so the above apply.
Then there is the cavalry, and what goes on over there is no one's business but their own and frankly, not a subject for polite society.
Er, and what debate?
@foxinsoxuk I actually find BoJo and Osborne to be on the 'most objectionable' end of the scale. The only figure more objectionable is Liam Fox, who is about is endearing as host of rats.
1. Brevet Colonel, as a battlefield appointment, to the senior surviving major if there were no more senior surviving officers gave them command of the regiment until such time as the post was confirmed by House Guards or a replacement sent. They were sometimes called Half Colonels.
2. Colonels with rank, but without a regiment (especially in peace time) were sometimes sent on extended furlough as Colonels-on-half-pay, also known informally as half-colonels
The police will prioritize their resources accordingly, as of course they must, and some crimes will be investigated more vigorously than others. That is how it should be. The argument that crimes should be overlooked in their entirety because police resources are limited is ludicrous.
[Off for a bit now].