The first three lines are from rolling over some of the boxes with red text on the left (quoting the Harris report), the final is calculated from offers made to UK domiciles.
Must be up there with Blair reading Jurisprudence and not being aware he needed primary legislation to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor.
There's no law degree at Oxford, must also have been jurisprudence
The Oxford jurisprudence course is not an LLB but still counts as a qualifying law course and graduates can go straight on to do the Legal Practice Course or Bar Proessional Training Course after graduation
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference
To be crystal clear, I’m not arguing that Cambridge Analytica and Kogan were innocent. At the very least, it is clear they were doing things that were contrary to Facebook’s data sharing policies. And similarly Facebook seems to have been altogether too cavalier with permitting developers to access its users’ private data.
What I am arguing is that Cambridge Analytica are not the puppet masters they are being widely portrayed as. If anything they are much more akin to Donald Trump; making widely exaggerated claims about their abilities and getting lots of attention as a result.
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference
Changing the entrance requirements back to what they used to be would not be dumbing down -- that would be making the course or exams easier. Not that rectifying faults in schools is necessarily to be condemned.
If Haas were doing something dodgy they would've just had one car pull over in a place like Grosjean did rather than ****ing up both stops and getting 0 points when they might've gotten 20 odd.
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference
Changing the entrance requirements back to what they used to be would not be dumbing down -- that would be making the course or exams easier. Not that rectifying faults in schools is necessarily to be condemned.
Changing entrance requirements back to what they used to be would require an entrance exam and classics. Of course if we had a few more grammar schools again we might also see an increase in the number of state school pupils at Oxford again too
Must be up there with Blair reading Jurisprudence and not being aware he needed primary legislation to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor.
There's no law degree at Oxford, must also have been jurisprudence
The Oxford jurisprudence course is not an LLB but still counts as a qualifying law course and graduates can go straight on to do the Legal Practice Course or Bar Proessional Training Course after graduation
Having done exactly that I am aware of the possibility.
And you can be damn sure that when I was on University Challenge I said "law". But that is just shorthand, and indeed useful shorthand, given only one-ninth of my grade was determined by an exam (and coursework) in actual jurisprudence.
Seriously, many organisations ask applicants to not put the name of their university on their application.
My old firm introduced that a few years ago.
It was to stop a perceived red brick bias.
The civil service does it, and I must admit, I think the bias can work both ways.
It does. We did find out that not all unis are equal though.
Google did that and discovered not only that what it thought were America's top universities weren't, but also that many of its best people did not have degrees.
Must be up there with Blair reading Jurisprudence and not being aware he needed primary legislation to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor.
There's no law degree at Oxford, must also have been jurisprudence
The Oxford jurisprudence course is not an LLB but still counts as a qualifying law course and graduates can go straight on to do the Legal Practice Course or Bar Proessional Training Course after graduation
Having done exactly that I am aware of the possibility.
And you can be damn sure that when I was on University Challenge I said "law". But that is just shorthand, and indeed useful shorthand, given only one-ninth of my grade was determined by an exam (and coursework) in actual jurisprudence.
My other half (And a large chunk of my friends network) went to Manchester
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference
Changing the entrance requirements back to what they used to be would not be dumbing down -- that would be making the course or exams easier. Not that rectifying faults in schools is necessarily to be condemned.
Changing entrance requirements back to what they used to be would require an entrance exam and classics. Of course if we had a few more grammar schools again we might also see an increase in the number of state school pupils at Oxford again too
The predicted / after grade offer problem is as old as time.
I remember the looks on the more middle class Oxbridge applicants in my sixth form Maths class when I pulled straight A's out of nowhere (before starred A's were really a mainstream thing) with the classic male few months of cram revision, and after being too far away in my predicted grades, and correctly so, to even contemplate an application.
Mrs Rata had a very different problem. She transferred into a Grammar Sixth Form in Kent to improve her Oxford chances, only to find her predicted grades held down as she was a comp kid and not one of 'their girls' whose capabilities they 'knew'. The application failed as a result, and it still rankles with her to this day.
What exactly does he think Jeremy Corbyn should have asked the Prime Minister about Labour anti-semitism?
What does the Prime Minister intend to do about the shadowy organisations that pull the strings from behind the scenes to run society the Labour Party ?
We do not doubt the strength and sincerity of the Mayor’s concerns on behalf of the victims in particular and Londoners in general. However, in our judgment none of these matters confers standing on the Mayor to bring this claim.
Back in yer box.....
Beginning to wonder if Team Corbo will begin to realise what a threat Khan is to their dear leader.
He's an ambitious chap and will be looking at a bigger job than Mayor soon.
How's he going to do it? Is he going to:
1. stand down from the mayoralty in 2020; 2. try to double-hat for two years; 3. provoke the biggest by-election ever by resigning to further his own ambition?
Devolved politics can provide a good platform from which to create a profile but it also puts one hell of a barrier between an individual and the overall leadership, and will also do so until parties change their rules to allow non-MPs to stand - which is obviously against the interests of any current leader, so unlikely to happen apart from at the very tail-end of a leadership where someone already on the way out wishes to broaden the field.
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference
Changing the entrance requirements back to what they used to be would not be dumbing down -- that would be making the course or exams easier. Not that rectifying faults in schools is necessarily to be condemned.
Changing entrance requirements back to what they used to be would require an entrance exam and classics. Of course if we had a few more grammar schools again we might also see an increase in the number of state school pupils at Oxford again too
The predicted / after grade offer problem is as old as time.
I remember the looks on the more middle class Oxbridge applicants in my sixth form Maths class when I pulled straight A's out of nowhere (before starred A's were really a mainstream thing) with the classic male few months of cram revision, and after being too far away in my predicted grades, and correctly so, to even contemplate an application.
Mrs Rata had a very different problem. She transferred into a Grammar Sixth Form in Kent to improve her Oxford chances, only to find her predicted grades held down as she was a comp kid and not one of 'their girls' whose capabilities they 'knew'. The application failed as a result, and it still rankles with her to this day.
If your grades were better thsn predicted you can still take a gap year and apply to Oxford after A Levels
Mr. Herdson, if Jarvis is an MP for an area covered by the new mayoralty then his seat will be in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire. Labour would have to work mightily to lose it.
Must be up there with Blair reading Jurisprudence and not being aware he needed primary legislation to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor.
There's no law degree at Oxford, must also have been jurisprudence
The Oxford jurisprudence course is not an LLB but still counts as a qualifying law course and graduates can go straight on to do the Legal Practice Course or Bar Proessional Training Course after graduation
Having done exactly that I am aware of the possibility.
And you can be damn sure that when I was on University Challenge I said "law". But that is just shorthand, and indeed useful shorthand, given only one-ninth of my grade was determined by an exam (and coursework) in actual jurisprudence.
My other half (And a large chunk of my friends network) went to Manchester
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference
Changing the entrance requirements back to what they used to be would not be dumbing down -- that would be making the course or exams easier. Not that rectifying faults in schools is necessarily to be condemned.
Changing entrance requirements back to what they used to be would require an entrance exam and classics. Of course if we had a few more grammar schools again we might also see an increase in the number of state school pupils at Oxford again too
The predicted / after grade offer problem is as old as time.
I remember the looks on the more middle class Oxbridge applicants in my sixth form Maths class when I pulled straight A's out of nowhere (before starred A's were really a mainstream thing) with the classic male few months of cram revision, and after being too far away in my predicted grades, and correctly so, to even contemplate an application.
Mrs Rata had a very different problem. She transferred into a Grammar Sixth Form in Kent to improve her Oxford chances, only to find her predicted grades held down as she was a comp kid and not one of 'their girls' whose capabilities they 'knew'. The application failed as a result, and it still rankles with her to this day.
If your grades were better thsn predicted you can still take a gap year and apply to Oxford after A Levels
Indeed. I was happy with my choices, and carried on regardless.
The question would be what to arrange in a gap year at such a late stage. In this respect too, I think privilege might afford better options to an 18 year old finding themselves in that position.
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference
Changing the entrance requirements back to what they used to be would not be dumbing down -- that would be making the course or exams easier. Not that rectifying faults in schools is necessarily to be condemned.
Changing entrance requirements back to what they used to be would require an entrance exam and classics. Of course if we had a few more grammar schools again we might also see an increase in the number of state school pupils at Oxford again too
The predicted / after grade offer problem is as old as time.
I remember the looks on the more middle class Oxbridge applicants in my sixth form Maths class when I pulled straight A's out of nowhere (before starred A's
If your grades were better thsn predicted you can still take a gap year and apply to Oxford after A Levels
Indeed. I was happy with my choices, and carried on regardless.
The question would be what to arrange in a gap year at such a late stage. In this respect too, I think privilege might afford better options to an 18 year old finding themselves in that position.
Plenty of things. From travel to voluntary work, even just working in Tescos for a few months would you get you some useful experience in a workplace and raise some cash
To be crystal clear, I’m not arguing that Cambridge Analytica and Kogan were innocent. At the very least, it is clear they were doing things that were contrary to Facebook’s data sharing policies. And similarly Facebook seems to have been altogether too cavalier with permitting developers to access its users’ private data.
What I am arguing is that Cambridge Analytica are not the puppet masters they are being widely portrayed as. If anything they are much more akin to Donald Trump; making widely exaggerated claims about their abilities and getting lots of attention as a result.
We do not doubt the strength and sincerity of the Mayor’s concerns on behalf of the victims in particular and Londoners in general. However, in our judgment none of these matters confers standing on the Mayor to bring this claim.
Back in yer box.....
Beginning to wonder if Team Corbo will begin to realise what a threat Khan is to their dear leader.
He's an ambitious chap and will be looking at a bigger job than Mayor soon.
How's he going to do it? Is he going to:
1. stand down from the mayoralty in 2020; 2. try to double-hat for two years; 3. provoke the biggest by-election ever by resigning to further his own ambition?
Devolved politics can provide a good platform from which to create a profile but it also puts one hell of a barrier between an individual and the overall leadership, and will also do so until parties change their rules to allow non-MPs to stand - which is obviously against the interests of any current leader, so unlikely to happen apart from at the very tail-end of a leadership where someone already on the way out wishes to broaden the field.
I should have also mentioned (credit to MD for reminding me, via the Jarvis/SYorks Mayor issue), that Labour's policy is that mayors can't serve as MPs, so if Khan wanted to return to Westminster, then as long as the current policy is in place, he'd have to either stand down in 2020, which would leave him out of the fray for two years, or else resign mid-term.
Oxford could change its admissions requirements but yes, the pipeline needs addressing. Making Oxbridge post-graduate only would also be sensible but I'm not holding my breath. In the short term, it should be possible to weight offers by poverty or any other factor.
Why should Oxford dumb down just to rectify the faults of the school system?
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference
Changing the entrance requirements back to what they used to be would not be dumbing down -- that would be making the course or exams easier. Not that rectifying faults in schools is necessarily to be condemned.
Changing entrance requirements back to what they used to be would require an entrance exam and classics. Of course if we had a few more grammar schools again we might also see an increase in the number of state school pupils at Oxford again too
The predicted / after grade offer problem is as old as time.
I remember the looks on the more middle class Oxbridge applicants in my sixth form Maths class when I pulled straight A's out of nowhere (before starred A's were really a mainstream thing) with the classic male few months of cram revision, and after being too far away in my predicted grades, and correctly so, to even contemplate an application.
Mrs Rata had a very different problem. She transferred into a Grammar Sixth Form in Kent to improve her Oxford chances, only to find her predicted grades held down as she was a comp kid and not one of 'their girls' whose capabilities they 'knew'. The application failed as a result, and it still rankles with her to this day.
If your grades were better thsn predicted you can still take a gap year and apply to Oxford after A Levels
Yes but these days there should be no need. Just wait till the results are known before making offers. A computer could do the job in seconds. No need for interviews but if anyone can prove they are valid predictors of success, then skype to the rescue!
Mr. Herdson, if Jarvis is an MP for an area covered by the new mayoralty then his seat will be in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire. Labour would have to work mightily to lose it.
Anyway, I must be off.
Labour would have to work mightily hard to lose it whatever. They tried their best with the PCC election but still managed to win (though Billings is a more impressive figure than Shaun Wright was).
We do not doubt the strength and sincerity of the Mayor’s concerns on behalf of the victims in particular and Londoners in general. However, in our judgment none of these matters confers standing on the Mayor to bring this claim.
Back in yer box.....
Beginning to wonder if Team Corbo will begin to realise what a threat Khan is to their dear leader.
He's an ambitious chap and will be looking at a bigger job than Mayor soon.
How's he going to do it? Is he going to:
1. stand down from the mayoralty in 2020; 2. try to double-hat for two years; 3. provoke the biggest by-election ever by resigning to further his own ambition?
Devolved politics can provide a good platform from which to create a profile but it also puts one hell of a barrier between an individual and the overall leadership, and will also do so until parties change their rules to allow non-MPs to stand - which is obviously against the interests of any current leader, so unlikely to happen apart from at the very tail-end of a leadership where someone already on the way out wishes to broaden the field.
By (3) do you mean a by-election to the mayoralty in ~2021? I think that is by far the most likely option.
Mr. Herdson, if Jarvis is an MP for an area covered by the new mayoralty then his seat will be in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire. Labour would have to work mightily to lose it.
Anyway, I must be off.
Labour would have to work mightily hard to lose it whatever. They tried their best with the PCC election but still managed to win (though Billings is a more impressive figure than Shaun Wright was).
UKIP's campaign was also diabolical in that campaign.
Mrs May has had a very good few weeks. Mr Corbyn has not. I am immensely confident that Jeremy will never be Prime Minister. That is good news for the country and, I suspect, the Labour party. It would also be good if Mrs May could use her current strength to downgrade some of the talentless fools currently in the cabinet solely because of their positions on Brexit.
To be crystal clear, I’m not arguing that Cambridge Analytica and Kogan were innocent. At the very least, it is clear they were doing things that were contrary to Facebook’s data sharing policies. And similarly Facebook seems to have been altogether too cavalier with permitting developers to access its users’ private data.
What I am arguing is that Cambridge Analytica are not the puppet masters they are being widely portrayed as. If anything they are much more akin to Donald Trump; making widely exaggerated claims about their abilities and getting lots of attention as a result.
That's a very good article, a bucket of cold water on the hysterics.
I thought this was very revealing:
So given how prevalent Facebook data harvesting was and that there are many developers with more than 270,000 users to harvest from, why is Cambridge Analytica receiving so much media attention?
The answer to this seems to primarily how journalists, particularly Carole Cadwalladr at the Observer, have framed the story...... Carole Cadwalladr, who spent years on the story, has explained in various interviews that she approached the story not as an investigative journalist but as a features writer. This meant that she focused on delving into ‘the human side of the story’, or put another way- Chris Wylie. There are pros and cons to such an approach but the biggest drawback is how invested and reliant it made her and subsequent coverage in accepting Wylie’s narrative, which just so happens to paint him as a young mastermind at the center of global political conspiracies
We do not doubt the strength and sincerity of the Mayor’s concerns on behalf of the victims in particular and Londoners in general. However, in our judgment none of these matters confers standing on the Mayor to bring this claim.
Back in yer box.....
Beginning to wonder if Team Corbo will begin to realise what a threat Khan is to their dear leader.
He's an ambitious chap and will be looking at a bigger job than Mayor soon.
How's he going to do it? Is he going to:
1. stand down from the mayoralty in 2020; 2. try to double-hat for two years; 3. provoke the biggest by-election ever by resigning to further his own ambition?
Devolved politics can provide a good platform from which to create a profile but it also puts one hell of a barrier between an individual and the overall leadership, and will also do so until parties change their rules to allow non-MPs to stand - which is obviously against the interests of any current leader, so unlikely to happen apart from at the very tail-end of a leadership where someone already on the way out wishes to broaden the field.
By (3) do you mean a by-election to the mayoralty in ~2021? I think that is by far the most likely option.
It'd be a by-election in mid-2020. Labour won't let mayors double-hat as MPs so if Khan returned to the Commons, then there'd need to be a (very expensive) mayoral by-election, probably in late June or early July.
Assuming Gauke does go, who will/should be his replacement.
Given his experience it should be Dominic Raab, but given Mrs May is doing her best to sabotage the chances of the likes of Raab it won't be Raab.
It will mean we'd be on our sixth Justice Secretary in three years.
#JusticeIsTheNewHomeOffice
The question should be asked whether the Justice Secretary should be a tip-top lawyer who can get it right first time or a lay Cabinet minister who can plausibly offload responsibility and blame onto officials. In the old language -- should the Justice Secretary be modelled on the Lord Chancellor or on the Home Secretary?
Assuming Gauke does go, who will/should be his replacement.
Given his experience it should be Dominic Raab, but given Mrs May is doing her best to sabotage the chances of the likes of Raab it won't be Raab.
It will mean we'd be on our sixth Justice Secretary in three years.
#JusticeIsTheNewHomeOffice
The question should be asked whether the Justice Secretary should be a tip-top lawyer who can get it right first time or a lay Cabinet minister who can plausibly offload responsibility and blame onto officials. In the old language -- should the Justice Secretary be modelled on the Lord Chancellor or on the Home Secretary?
This is the result of Blair’s constitutional vandalism.
The two best Justice Secretaries were Ken Clarke and Michael Gove.
One was an eminent QC the other was a journalist with a degree in English.
We do not doubt the strength and sincerity of the Mayor’s concerns on behalf of the victims in particular and Londoners in general. However, in our judgment none of these matters confers standing on the Mayor to bring this claim.
Back in yer box.....
Beginning to wonder if Team Corbo will begin to realise what a threat Khan is to their dear leader.
He's an ambitious chap and will be looking at a bigger job than Mayor soon.
How's he going to do it? Is he going to:
1. stand down from the mayoralty in 2020; 2. try to double-hat for two years; 3. provoke the biggest by-election ever by resigning to further his own ambition?
Devolved politics can provide a good platform from which to create a profile but it also puts one hell of a barrier between an individual and the overall leadership, and will also do so until parties change their rules to allow non-MPs to stand - which is obviously against the interests of any current leader, so unlikely to happen apart from at the very tail-end of a leadership where someone already on the way out wishes to broaden the field.
By (3) do you mean a by-election to the mayoralty in ~2021? I think that is by far the most likely option.
It'd be a by-election in mid-2020. Labour won't let mayors double-hat as MPs so if Khan returned to the Commons, then there'd need to be a (very expensive) mayoral by-election, probably in late June or early July.
Not sure I follow.
Khan's decision is whether to stand for the mayoralty again in 2020.
If the next GE election 2022, then the mayoral by-election would be in 2021 or potentially 2022 I would have thought.
Airbus has slammed attempts by Brussels to freeze the UK out of the EU’s €10bn Galileo navigation project after Brexit, warning that British participation in European space programmes is critical to partnership on security and defence.
Tom Enders, Airbus chief executive, has urged the European Commission to rethink its proposal to exclude the UK from access to Galileo’s encrypted services or industrial participation after March 2019. He called on both sides to find a long-term solution to retain Britain’s participation in all space programmes.
“The UK’s continued participation in the EU Galileo programme will ensure security and defence ties are strengthened for the benefit of Europe as a whole, during a period of increasing threats to our security and geopolitical instability,” he said in a statement to the Financial Times.
We do not doubt the strength and sincerity of the Mayor’s concerns on behalf of the victims in particular and Londoners in general. However, in our judgment none of these matters confers standing on the Mayor to bring this claim.
Back in yer box.....
Beginning to wonder if Team Corbo will begin to realise what a threat Khan is to their dear leader.
He's an ambitious chap and will be looking at a bigger job than Mayor soon.
How's he going to do it? Is he going to:
1. stand down from the mayoralty in 2020; 2. try to double-hat for two years; 3. provoke the biggest by-election ever by resigning to further his own ambition?
Devolved politics can provide a good platform from which to create a profile but it also puts one hell of a barrier between an individual and the overall leadership, and will also do so until parties change their rules to allow non-MPs to stand - which is obviously against the interests of any current leader, so unlikely to happen apart from at the very tail-end of a leadership where someone already on the way out wishes to broaden the field.
By (3) do you mean a by-election to the mayoralty in ~2021? I think that is by far the most likely option.
It'd be a by-election in mid-2020. Labour won't let mayors double-hat as MPs so if Khan returned to the Commons, then there'd need to be a (very expensive) mayoral by-election, probably in late June or early July.
Not sure I follow.
Khan's decision is whether to stand for the mayoralty again in 2020.
If the next GE election 2022, then the mayoral by-election would be in 2021 or potentially 2022 I would have thought.
Sorry, you're right: I'm talking nonsense. I meant 2022, not 2020. For some reason, my mind had wiped all memory of the 2017GE (even though I clearly had some consciousness of it as were that the date of the next GE, it'd be easy for the London mayor to move to Westminster).
Hmm, David Gauke says in the statement he's just released:
I took expert legal advice from leading counsel on whether I should bring a challenge. The bar for judicial review is set high. I considered whether the decision was legally rational - in other words, a decision which no reasonable Parole Board could have made.
The advice I received was that such an argument was highly unlikely to succeed. And, indeed, this argument did not succeed. However, the victims succeeded in a different argument.
The court summary says:
We uphold the challenge by DSD and NBV, as we have slightly reformulated it, to the rationality of the decision of the Parole Board directing the release of Mr Radford on the basis that it should have undertaken further inquiry into the circumstances of his offending and, in particular, the extent to which the limited way in which he has described his offending may undermine his overall credibility and reliability. That is so even in relation to the offences of which he was convicted, let alone any other offending
Not that much of a different argument, if I've understood correctly.
I hope this doesn't wreck David Gauke's career, because I think he's a talented minister. But that juxtaposition doesn't look good.
I thought it was quite brave of David Gaulke not to judicially review this extremely unpopular decision. It was based on legal advice and the easy path was to go to court and be seen to be doing all that could be done. It gave respect to the separation of roles and the undesirability of the government seeking to undermine the independent Parole Board.
It seems to me , even although he has proven to be wrong on this occasion these are admirable and desirable traits in a Justice Minister. I hope that May stands by him.
Hmm, David Gauke says in the statement he's just released:
I took expert legal advice from leading counsel on whether I should bring a challenge. The bar for judicial review is set high. I considered whether the decision was legally rational - in other words, a decision which no reasonable Parole Board could have made.
The advice I received was that such an argument was highly unlikely to succeed. And, indeed, this argument did not succeed. However, the victims succeeded in a different argument.
The court summary says:
We uphold the challenge by DSD and NBV, as we have slightly reformulated it, to the rationality of the decision of the Parole Board directing the release of Mr Radford on the basis that it should have undertaken further inquiry into the circumstances of his offending and, in particular, the extent to which the limited way in which he has described his offending may undermine his overall credibility and reliability. That is so even in relation to the offences of which he was convicted, let alone any other offending
Not that much of a different argument, if I've understood correctly.
I hope this doesn't wreck David Gauke's career, because I think he's a talented minister. But that juxtaposition doesn't look good.
I hope that May stands by him.
Ken Clarke did, robustly, immediately after Burgon - who came across a bit half hearted, knowing that the 'something [that] must be done' would be entirely inappropriate....
Hmm, David Gauke says in the statement he's just released:
I took expert legal advice from leading counsel on whether I should bring a challenge. The bar for judicial review is set high. I considered whether the decision was legally rational - in other words, a decision which no reasonable Parole Board could have made.
The advice I received was that such an argument was highly unlikely to succeed. And, indeed, this argument did not succeed. However, the victims succeeded in a different argument.
The court summary says:
We uphold the challenge by DSD and NBV, as we have slightly reformulated it, to the rationality of the decision of the Parole Board directing the release of Mr Radford on the basis that it should have undertaken further inquiry into the circumstances of his offending and, in particular, the extent to which the limited way in which he has described his offending may undermine his overall credibility and reliability. That is so even in relation to the offences of which he was convicted, let alone any other offending
Not that much of a different argument, if I've understood correctly.
I hope this doesn't wreck David Gauke's career, because I think he's a talented minister. But that juxtaposition doesn't look good.
I thought it was quite brave of David Gaulke not to judicially review this extremely unpopular decision. It was based on legal advice and the easy path was to go to court and be seen to be doing all that could be done. It gave respect to the separation of roles and the undesirability of the government seeking to undermine the independent Parole Board.
It seems to me , even although he has proven to be wrong on this occasion these are admirable and desirable traits in a Justice Minister. I hope that May stands by him.
To be fair both Gauke and the Parole Board Chairman were somewhere between a rock and a hard place. I can see why the Chairman felt it right to resign; not quite so sure why Gauke felt he had to come out swinging about it.
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.
In my opinion Mr Gauke has an excellent opportunity to come away from this episode with his dignity intact - and he should certainly acknowledge Msrs Clarke, Davey, Soubry point in his resignation letter.
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.
Thanks.
And they are absolutely right. He sought legal advice and followed it. If the SoS for Justice can't rely on the legal advice from their own department, then we need new lawyers.
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.
Thanks.
And they are absolutely right. He sought legal advice and followed it. If the SoS for Justice can't rely on the legal advice from their own department, then we need new lawyers.
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.
In my opinion Mr Gauke has an excellent opportunity to come away from this episode with his dignity intact - and he should certainly acknowledge Msrs Clarke, Davey, Soubry point in his resignation letter.
I’m looking at it long term. I could win £610 today.
Or I could win over £5k when David Gauke becomes PM after Theresa.
Think of the PBer who makes over 19k in the same scenario. £55 at 350/1 after I tipped him.
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.
In my opinion Mr Gauke has an excellent opportunity to come away from this episode with his dignity intact - and he should certainly acknowledge Msrs Clarke, Davey, Soubry point in his resignation letter.
I’m looking at it long term. I could win £610 today.
Or I could win over £5k when David Gauke becomes PM after Theresa.
Think of the PBer who makes over 19k in the same scenario. £55 at 350/1 after I tipped him.
Gives me bragging rights forever.
Or he could resign today, with plenty of time to make a comeback for when May stands down in 2024...
Are we certain that the High Court would have reached the same conclusion had the government pursued the matter?
This is what David Gauke said on that point:
I also received advice on the failure of process argument [the argument that the Parole Board did not follow proper processes - an argument used in court by the victims and Khan] and was advised that this was not one that I as secretary of state would have been able to successfully advance. The victims were better placed to make this argument and this was the argument on which they have won their case... .. Indeed, the judgment suggests that had I brought the case, the standing of the victims may have been compromised.
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.
In my opinion Mr Gauke has an excellent opportunity to come away from this episode with his dignity intact - and he should certainly acknowledge Msrs Clarke, Davey, Soubry point in his resignation letter.
What is your basis for demanding his resignation?
Quite rightly, the Parole Board is independent of government - no LC should ever seek to interfere in their decision making process
As LC, Gauke took legal advice and as a result did not pursue a Judicial Review.
Are we certain that the High Court would have reached the same conclusion had the government pursued the matter?
This is what David Gauke said on that point:
I also received advice on the failure of process argument [the argument that the Parole Board did not follow proper processes - an argument used in court by the victims and Khan] and was advised that this was not one that I as secretary of state would have been able to successfully advance. The victims were better placed to make this argument and this was the argument on which they have won their case.
No sofa for Mrs Pulpstar, by the looks of it.
The sofa is arriving anyway, para 11 (relating to Khan) certainly looks like a "Get out of jail free" card should Gauke wish to play it that way (Which he seem to have done so). But the optics aren't great for the government whatever the status of our bets.
Looks like Ken Clarke has ridden to the rescue of Mr Gauke.....and the rest of us....
Sir Ed Davey also backing Gauke.
What have Ken and Ed Davey said?
Gauke was right to follow the legal advice and that criminal justice shouldn’t be determined by media campaigns, no matter how popular.
In my opinion Mr Gauke has an excellent opportunity to come away from this episode with his dignity intact - and he should certainly acknowledge Msrs Clarke, Davey, Soubry point in his resignation letter.
What is your basis for demanding his resignation?
Quite rightly, the Parole Board is independent of government - no LC should ever seek to interfere in their decision making process
As LC, Gauke took legal advice and as a result did not pursue a Judicial Review.
What did he do to justify resignation?
I suspect that final judgement should be reserved until we see the replacement Chairman.
Are we certain that the High Court would have reached the same conclusion had the government pursued the matter?
This is what David Gauke said on that point:
I also received advice on the failure of process argument [the argument that the Parole Board did not follow proper processes - an argument used in court by the victims and Khan] and was advised that this was not one that I as secretary of state would have been able to successfully advance. The victims were better placed to make this argument and this was the argument on which they have won their case.
No sofa for Mrs Pulpstar, by the looks of it.
The sofa is arriving anyway, para 11 (relating to Khan) certainly looks like a "Get out of jail free" card should Gauke wish to play it that way (Which he seem to have done so). But the optics aren't great for the government whatever the status of our bets.
Gauke, resign or not, is a Westminster bubble debate which, on here anyway, many seem to have a financial interest in, which may or may not be impinging.
Gauke, resign or not, is a Westminster bubble debate which, on here anyway, many seem to have a financial interest in, which may or may not be impinging.
I find it interesting how small the world really is - we have the Australian cricket team tampering with the ball and allegations of improper practice on both sides during the EU Referendum.
What links these two stories - simply, the question of what you or anyone will do to win whether it's a referendum, an election, a cricket match, a job or whatever.
What would you do to win ? Would you break the law, would you bend the law ?
It's human nature to want to succeed, to want to win, but is the "win at any cost" mentality any more than an excuse for darker aspects of human nature to come through ?
How much would you smear an opponent to win ? How much would you sabotage a rival to get a job, a contract, a profit ?
Ultimately, if sport and politics are not so far apart, the question isn't about breaking the law but getting caught. Smith, Warner and Bancroft got caught - was that their crime ? If we are to believe John Holder, cricket teams have been resorting to underhand tactics for years.
In politics, too, isn't the crime getting caught ? Aren't most elections tainted by all sides doing whatever it takes - voters were intimidated and bribed in the past, they arguably still are today, only the methods have changed.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ71KuCwhd0
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/law-jurisprudence?wssl=1
David was born in 1971 and was educated at Northgate High School, a state comprehensive in Ipswich, and read law at St Edmund Hall, Oxford University.
http://www.davidgauke.com/about
Making it just post graduate would just see it dominated by postgraduates with 1sts from Russell Group universities so I doubt would make much difference
To be crystal clear, I’m not arguing that Cambridge Analytica and Kogan were innocent. At the very least, it is clear they were doing things that were contrary to Facebook’s data sharing policies. And similarly Facebook seems to have been altogether too cavalier with permitting developers to access its users’ private data.
What I am arguing is that Cambridge Analytica are not the puppet masters they are being widely portrayed as. If anything they are much more akin to Donald Trump; making widely exaggerated claims about their abilities and getting lots of attention as a result.
https://god-knows-what.com/2018/03/27/why-almost-everything-reported-about-the-cambridge-analytica-facebook-hacking-controversy-is-wrong/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/28/pmqs-may-corbyn-britons-could-lose-right-to-urgent-medical-treatment-in-eu-after-brexit-peers-warn-politics-live
If Haas were doing something dodgy they would've just had one car pull over in a place like Grosjean did rather than ****ing up both stops and getting 0 points when they might've gotten 20 odd.
And you can be damn sure that when I was on University Challenge I said "law". But that is just shorthand, and indeed useful shorthand, given only one-ninth of my grade was determined by an exam (and coursework) in actual jurisprudence.
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/978958803059298304
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/09/technology/google-people-laszlo-bock/index.html
"Former Labour minister David Lammy is being threatened with deselection by his local party after attending a rally against anti-Semitism."
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/david-lammy-threatened-with-deselection-after-attending-labour-antisemitism-protest-a3800991.html
I remember the looks on the more middle class Oxbridge applicants in my sixth form Maths class when I pulled straight A's out of nowhere (before starred A's were really a mainstream thing) with the classic male few months of cram revision, and after being too far away in my predicted grades, and correctly so, to even contemplate an application.
Mrs Rata had a very different problem. She transferred into a Grammar Sixth Form in Kent to improve her Oxford chances, only to find her predicted grades held down as she was a comp kid and not one of 'their girls' whose capabilities they 'knew'. The application failed as a result, and it still rankles with her to this day.
1. stand down from the mayoralty in 2020;
2. try to double-hat for two years;
3. provoke the biggest by-election ever by resigning to further his own ambition?
Devolved politics can provide a good platform from which to create a profile but it also puts one hell of a barrier between an individual and the overall leadership, and will also do so until parties change their rules to allow non-MPs to stand - which is obviously against the interests of any current leader, so unlikely to happen apart from at the very tail-end of a leadership where someone already on the way out wishes to broaden the field.
Anyway, I must be off.
Why on Earth is the civil service allowed to get away with it when we have a Tory government?
The question would be what to arrange in a gap year at such a late stage. In this respect too, I think privilege might afford better options to an 18 year old finding themselves in that position.
That's the sort of thing that caused Brexit I believe.
The elite didn't carry the demos for the EU integration project.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/978961846802796544
I had no role in the decision of the panel in the case
I will not pass the buck to those who work under me
Even the victims were asking them to stop.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBen/status/978966904814612480
Given his experience it should be Dominic Raab, but given Mrs May is doing her best to sabotage the chances of the likes of Raab it won't be Raab.
It will mean we'd be on our sixth Justice Secretary in three years.
#JusticeIsTheNewHomeOffice
Neatly gliding over the question of standing
https://www.stwater.co.uk/about-us/reservoir-levels/
Mrs May has had a very good few weeks. Mr Corbyn has not. I am immensely confident that Jeremy will never be Prime Minister. That is good news for the country and, I suspect, the Labour party. It would also be good if Mrs May could use her current strength to downgrade some of the talentless fools currently in the cabinet solely because of their positions on Brexit.
So given how prevalent Facebook data harvesting was and that there are many developers with more than 270,000 users to harvest from, why is Cambridge Analytica receiving so much media attention?
The answer to this seems to primarily how journalists, particularly Carole Cadwalladr at the Observer, have framed the story...... Carole Cadwalladr, who spent years on the story, has explained in various interviews that she approached the story not as an investigative journalist but as a features writer. This meant that she focused on delving into ‘the human side of the story’, or put another way- Chris Wylie. There are pros and cons to such an approach but the biggest drawback is how invested and reliant it made her and subsequent coverage in accepting Wylie’s narrative, which just so happens to paint him as a young mastermind at the center of global political conspiracies
https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/978950865661890562
The two best Justice Secretaries were Ken Clarke and Michael Gove.
One was an eminent QC the other was a journalist with a degree in English.
Khan's decision is whether to stand for the mayoralty again in 2020.
If the next GE election 2022, then the mayoral by-election would be in 2021 or potentially 2022 I would have thought.
https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/978972628525506560
Colour me stunned.
So come on David and do the decent thing and resign.
Tom Enders, Airbus chief executive, has urged the European Commission to rethink its proposal to exclude the UK from access to Galileo’s encrypted services or industrial participation after March 2019. He called on both sides to find a long-term solution to retain Britain’s participation in all space programmes.
“The UK’s continued participation in the EU Galileo programme will ensure security and defence ties are strengthened for the benefit of Europe as a whole, during a period of increasing threats to our security and geopolitical instability,” he said in a statement to the Financial Times.
https://www.ft.com/content/a3eb07ac-3278-11e8-ac48-10c6fdc22f03
I thought it was quite brave of David Gaulke not to judicially review this extremely unpopular decision. It was based on legal advice and the easy path was to go to court and be seen to be doing all that could be done. It gave respect to the separation of roles and the undesirability of the government seeking to undermine the independent Parole Board.
It seems to me , even although he has proven to be wrong on this occasion these are admirable and desirable traits in a Justice Minister. I hope that May stands by him.
So Clarke, Grieve, and Soubry, the legal big hitters of the party are on board.
It does sell eleven copies for every Guardian sold....
In the digital age, democracy is becoming a delusion
Nic Cheeseman and Brian Klaas"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/how-to-rig-an-election/
Or I could win over £5k when David Gauke becomes PM after Theresa.
Think of the PBer who makes over 19k in the same scenario. £55 at 350/1 after I tipped him.
Gives me bragging rights forever.
I also received advice on the failure of process argument [the argument that the Parole Board did not follow proper processes - an argument used in court by the victims and Khan] and was advised that this was not one that I as secretary of state would have been able to successfully advance. The victims were better placed to make this argument and this was the argument on which they have won their case...
..
Indeed, the judgment suggests that had I brought the case, the standing of the victims may have been compromised.
No sofa for Mrs Pulpstar, by the looks of it.
Quite rightly, the Parole Board is independent of government - no LC should ever seek to interfere in their decision making process
As LC, Gauke took legal advice and as a result did not pursue a Judicial Review.
What did he do to justify resignation?
But the optics aren't great for the government whatever the status of our bets.
The clue is in the website name : http://www.politicalbetting.com/
I find it interesting how small the world really is - we have the Australian cricket team tampering with the ball and allegations of improper practice on both sides during the EU Referendum.
What links these two stories - simply, the question of what you or anyone will do to win whether it's a referendum, an election, a cricket match, a job or whatever.
What would you do to win ? Would you break the law, would you bend the law ?
It's human nature to want to succeed, to want to win, but is the "win at any cost" mentality any more than an excuse for darker aspects of human nature to come through ?
How much would you smear an opponent to win ? How much would you sabotage a rival to get a job, a contract, a profit ?
Ultimately, if sport and politics are not so far apart, the question isn't about breaking the law but getting caught. Smith, Warner and Bancroft got caught - was that their crime ? If we are to believe John Holder, cricket teams have been resorting to underhand tactics for years.
In politics, too, isn't the crime getting caught ? Aren't most elections tainted by all sides doing whatever it takes - voters were intimidated and bribed in the past, they arguably still are today, only the methods have changed.
Do the ends always justify the means ?