There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.
But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.
tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.
But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?
FPT, there is apparently a £30k pa budget.
Ah thanks. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for a mid-terrace house in Harlow?...
Per annum ? You have elevated tastes.
I'm sure there is the odd bit of plastering and so forth to do also. As I said, this is Downing Street ffs.
The property is also listed, which will add very significantly to the cost of doing anything.
What is the 30k per annum meant to cover? Is it just redecoration? Or does this fund include all the upkeep/ongoing repairs to the property ?
Repairs to 10 DS will involve the use of heritage craftsmen rather than someone from www.trustatrader.com.
There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.
But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.
tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.
But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?
FPT, there is apparently a £30k pa budget.
Ah thanks. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for a mid-terrace house in Harlow?...
Per annum ? You have elevated tastes.
I'm sure there is the odd bit of plastering and so forth to do also. As I said, this is Downing Street ffs.
But these are for the personal bedsits, not the whole building, which I suspect has a renovation budget of its own, and I also imagine that covers the apartments when there is a bigger project afoot.
On the other hand, I do think it's extremely important that the PM is comfortable, happy, has access to outdoors space, and gets good sleep. If the apartments at No. 10 don't facilitate that (even with modifications), then another arrangement should be found. Shouldn't be too hard to find a grace and favour apartment in one of the royal palaces.
fpt Nick Palmer and canvassing/leafleting - had a communication from my local Party that it will be allowed from 8th March "whilst complying with Covid best practice".
Shame I have left that Party but still.
Lib Dems have been warbling about this for a number of days.
Perhaps in the list of reasons the Prime Minister might retire before 2024, this provides more evidence that Boris is cash-strapped.
Last week as I was applauding Boris's performance, other PBers debated whether he looked 80 or just 70 years old. If Boris does hope to make serious money on the American lecture circuit, he must keep a rheumy eye on the calendar.
Theresa May outdoes Boris Johnson with £1m from speech fees
... The former prime minister earned £136,000 last month [September] for delivering a speech in Seoul on global responses to the coronavirus pandemic. It takes her total for after-dinner talks so far this year to more than £1 million.
The fee means that the MP for Maidenhead appears to have surpassed Boris Johnson for after-dinner earning power.
Fair play to her, she deserves a more relaxing time and if she earnt £1 million last year through after-dinner talks that is almost ten times what she was earning as PM
I would bet the contents of my garage that this anti NutNuts campaign is being orchestrated by Gove.
I don't think he's that stupid.
Anyone going after her will be out the door surely, just like Cummings, and quite right too. Anyone attacking my wife would not be on my good books so I expect the same from Johnson.
Gove is definitely a schemer but you need to pick your battles. Picking a battle with the 'first lady' is suicide so he's an idiot if he's doing that.
If history has shown one thing it is Boris Johnson has an unbreakable bond of fidelity and loyalty to his spouses.
The French must be laughing their socks off at how Les Rosbifs do "political scandal", having just seen Sarkozy show us Gallic scandal. A proper one. Bribery and everything. With added jail time.
Poor attempt to smear Johnson for doing something so that it doesn't come out of the public purse.
Or they could just.... Not redecorate and live with TMay's "John Lewis furniture nightmare" (quote from The Times), like any normal person would.
Besides, everyone knows that there's no point redecorating when you've just had a baby. Mark my words, it'll need redoing faster than you can say "Darling, how many times have I asked you to keep the Sharpies out of Wilfed's reach?"
The (Mail) article says May didn’t do any renovations - after all the Cameron’s did a big overhaul relatively recently.
That would be a decade ago now presumably? Just as the Cameron's themselves did an overhaul a decade after the Blairs?
A decade isn't that unusual an interval for renovations is it? If this reduces the bill to taxpayers I'm all for it.
We spend £30,000 on Downing Street renovations, lets spend it on a teacher instead.
This argument just doesn't work, I'm afraid.
The problem with soliciting gifts which personally benefit you and your family is that there is a reason why people are making those gifts rather than (for example) paying for a renovated family room at the local hospital (which would indeed otherwise be paid by the taxpayer). It's to make it so the PM owes them a personal favour, and it's terribly naive to think otherwise.
The idea that a genuine philanthropist can think of no better way to do good deeds than to pay for scatter cushions for Johnson and Symonds is, frankly, ludicrous. A moment's thought will tell you why they are doing it.
Politicians should not touch this sort of thing with a bargepole - it's deeply unwise. There are funds available for maintaining accommodation owned by the Government, and if that isn't enough for the PM's missus-to-be to get everything she wants, then that's a private conversation between the couple themselves. And if a philanthropist comes offering to be "generous", thank them kindly and direct them to their local school, hospital or museum.
There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.
But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.
tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.
But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?
FPT, there is apparently a £30k pa budget.
Ah thanks. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for a mid-terrace house in Harlow?...
Per annum ? You have elevated tastes.
I'm sure there is the odd bit of plastering and so forth to do also. As I said, this is Downing Street ffs.
The property is also listed, which will add very significantly to the cost of doing anything.
What is the 30k per annum meant to cover? Is it just redecoration? Or does this fund include all the upkeep/ongoing repairs to the property ?
Repairs to 10 DS will involve the use of heritage craftsmen rather than someone from www.trustatrader.com.
They will charge accordingly.
Is sort of the line I was getting at. Plus if you have to be there, or it is the custom to be there, why shouldn't you do it out the way you want within those heritage guidelines and guidance. The next incumbent can always remove the mirror above the bed and the XXXXX in the XXXXXXXX attached to the XXXXXXX.
There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.
But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.
tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.
But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?
FPT, there is apparently a £30k pa budget.
Ah thanks. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for a mid-terrace house in Harlow?...
Per annum ? You have elevated tastes.
I'm sure there is the odd bit of plastering and so forth to do also. As I said, this is Downing Street ffs.
Nobody made the PM or his wife redecorate. I have this crazy idea that this voluntary act of expenditure should be funded by those that chose to make it. And who also live there.
Only this grasping clown could imagine that his latest trick's vast redecoration bill should be picked up by "charity". Prime Ministers and their Spouses have complained about the Downing Street accommodation since times past - and yet all have resisted claiming that "charity" should pick up the bill as they redecorated "for the nation".
But lets not look at that. Far more fun to look north at he said she said as we get to the heart of the vast SNP conspiracy that culminated in 9 women deliberately perjuring themselves as part of a plot to jail the former leader of the SNP to advance the cause of the SNP or whatever.
Re your last paragraph it is the SNP involved in their own civil war, and as a matter of interest did you listen to all of Salmond’s testimony and if so not recognise just how serious this is for the SNP and has nothing to do with anything south of the border
As I have posted repeatedly, there is a lot of heat and light being generated by the central event. Others are fascinated by the heat and light and opportunities for outrage based off it. I am far more interested in the central event which is the source of the heat and light.
According to Salmond, there is a conspiracy against him within the SNP which culminated in 9 women making entirely false and malicious allegations against him to the police and on the witness stand. These women, and the SNP/government bigwigs, were supposedly motivated by the desire to have Salmond carted away to prison and thus out of the way politically.
As I do not for a minute believe this central allegation, I am not really interested in the heat and the light generated from it. You may want it to be serious for the SNP for political reasons, but wanting something doesn't always make it fact. Especially when the second part of your narrative is that as the SNP are crooks you have to vote Tory to get them out. Because the idea that people vote Tory to remove the stench of corruption and cronyism is laughable.
All the evidence points to the conspiracy and fact that despite most of it being known about , the government not allowing it to be in the inquiry is the only thing that stops it being stated says it all. Anyone interested will have seen the evidence , know at least some of the names being hidden etc and know it is true. They tried to nobble him , he did not fold and they knew their goose was cooked on judicial review so gathered together a list and handed it direct to crown , despite the original two participants stating they did not want police involved. They hoped the criminal case would overtake the judicial review and save their skins. Then it was a case of ever increasing problems trying to hide, burn , etc all the evidence. They stupidly had not thought that Salmond got every document to help with his defence. So it all comes down to whether they can continue to sue crown etc to hide the evidence from parliament.
Just so we are clear. The evidence points to these 9 women lying to the police and perjuring themselves on the stand?
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
Nobody made the PM or his wife redecorate. I have this crazy idea that this voluntary act of expenditure should be funded by those that chose to make it. And who also live there.
Only this grasping clown could imagine that his latest trick's vast redecoration bill should be picked up by "charity". Prime Ministers and their Spouses have complained about the Downing Street accommodation since times past - and yet all have resisted claiming that "charity" should pick up the bill as they redecorated "for the nation".
But lets not look at that. Far more fun to look north at he said she said as we get to the heart of the vast SNP conspiracy that culminated in 9 women deliberately perjuring themselves as part of a plot to jail the former leader of the SNP to advance the cause of the SNP or whatever.
Re your last paragraph it is the SNP involved in their own civil war, and as a matter of interest did you listen to all of Salmond’s testimony and if so not recognise just how serious this is for the SNP and has nothing to do with anything south of the border
As I have posted repeatedly, there is a lot of heat and light being generated by the central event. Others are fascinated by the heat and light and opportunities for outrage based off it. I am far more interested in the central event which is the source of the heat and light.
According to Salmond, there is a conspiracy against him within the SNP which culminated in 9 women making entirely false and malicious allegations against him to the police and on the witness stand. These women, and the SNP/government bigwigs, were supposedly motivated by the desire to have Salmond carted away to prison and thus out of the way politically.
As I do not for a minute believe this central allegation, I am not really interested in the heat and the light generated from it. You may want it to be serious for the SNP for political reasons, but wanting something doesn't always make it fact. Especially when the second part of your narrative is that as the SNP are crooks you have to vote Tory to get them out. Because the idea that people vote Tory to remove the stench of corruption and cronyism is laughable.
All the evidence points to the conspiracy and fact that despite most of it being known about , the government not allowing it to be in the inquiry is the only thing that stops it being stated says it all. Anyone interested will have seen the evidence , know at least some of the names being hidden etc and know it is true. They tried to nobble him , he did not fold and they knew their goose was cooked on judicial review so gathered together a list and handed it direct to crown , despite the original two participants stating they did not want police involved. They hoped the criminal case would overtake the judicial review and save their skins. Then it was a case of ever increasing problems trying to hide, burn , etc all the evidence. They stupidly had not thought that Salmond got every document to help with his defence. So it all comes down to whether they can continue to sue crown etc to hide the evidence from parliament.
Just so we are clear. The evidence points to these 9 women lying to the police and perjuring themselves on the stand?
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
So you won't vote for the SNP in May then because of their actions, right?
• Tory voters support a wealth tax • Labour voters support a wealth tax • Labour members support a wealth tax • Labour donors do not support a wealth tax
Nobody made the PM or his wife redecorate. I have this crazy idea that this voluntary act of expenditure should be funded by those that chose to make it. And who also live there.
Only this grasping clown could imagine that his latest trick's vast redecoration bill should be picked up by "charity". Prime Ministers and their Spouses have complained about the Downing Street accommodation since times past - and yet all have resisted claiming that "charity" should pick up the bill as they redecorated "for the nation".
But lets not look at that. Far more fun to look north at he said she said as we get to the heart of the vast SNP conspiracy that culminated in 9 women deliberately perjuring themselves as part of a plot to jail the former leader of the SNP to advance the cause of the SNP or whatever.
Re your last paragraph it is the SNP involved in their own civil war, and as a matter of interest did you listen to all of Salmond’s testimony and if so not recognise just how serious this is for the SNP and has nothing to do with anything south of the border
As I have posted repeatedly, there is a lot of heat and light being generated by the central event. Others are fascinated by the heat and light and opportunities for outrage based off it. I am far more interested in the central event which is the source of the heat and light.
According to Salmond, there is a conspiracy against him within the SNP which culminated in 9 women making entirely false and malicious allegations against him to the police and on the witness stand. These women, and the SNP/government bigwigs, were supposedly motivated by the desire to have Salmond carted away to prison and thus out of the way politically.
As I do not for a minute believe this central allegation, I am not really interested in the heat and the light generated from it. You may want it to be serious for the SNP for political reasons, but wanting something doesn't always make it fact. Especially when the second part of your narrative is that as the SNP are crooks you have to vote Tory to get them out. Because the idea that people vote Tory to remove the stench of corruption and cronyism is laughable.
All the evidence points to the conspiracy and fact that despite most of it being known about , the government not allowing it to be in the inquiry is the only thing that stops it being stated says it all. Anyone interested will have seen the evidence , know at least some of the names being hidden etc and know it is true. They tried to nobble him , he did not fold and they knew their goose was cooked on judicial review so gathered together a list and handed it direct to crown , despite the original two participants stating they did not want police involved. They hoped the criminal case would overtake the judicial review and save their skins. Then it was a case of ever increasing problems trying to hide, burn , etc all the evidence. They stupidly had not thought that Salmond got every document to help with his defence. So it all comes down to whether they can continue to sue crown etc to hide the evidence from parliament.
Just so we are clear. The evidence points to these 9 women lying to the police and perjuring themselves on the stand?
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
So you won't vote for the SNP in May then because of their actions, right?
Not unless Sturgeon is gone and I will vote another independence party on the list
Bit small-scale and provincial, isn't it? Boris and Carrie should Think Bigger in thsi era of Global Britain. Perhaps they could ask Vladimir to send them a virtual tour of his pad, to expand their horizons.
Personally kick out the Queen from Buckingham Palace and move the PM in there.
I mean Brenda's got plenty of residences, she won't miss one.
Harry's old gaff is sitting empty, and it has a sprung dance floor.
Perhaps in the list of reasons the Prime Minister might retire before 2024, this provides more evidence that Boris is cash-strapped.
Last week as I was applauding Boris's performance, other PBers debated whether he looked 80 or just 70 years old. If Boris does hope to make serious money on the American lecture circuit, he must keep a rheumy eye on the calendar.
Theresa May outdoes Boris Johnson with £1m from speech fees
... The former prime minister earned £136,000 last month [September] for delivering a speech in Seoul on global responses to the coronavirus pandemic. It takes her total for after-dinner talks so far this year to more than £1 million.
The fee means that the MP for Maidenhead appears to have surpassed Boris Johnson for after-dinner earning power.
Now idea about Mr Broon. Is it expensive to pay for a visit from a world-saving raincloud? Though I seem to recall things being channelled via a charity.
Poor attempt to smear Johnson for doing something so that it doesn't come out of the public purse.
Or they could just.... Not redecorate and live with TMay's "John Lewis furniture nightmare" (quote from The Times), like any normal person would.
Besides, everyone knows that there's no point redecorating when you've just had a baby. Mark my words, it'll need redoing faster than you can say "Darling, how many times have I asked you to keep the Sharpies out of Wilfed's reach?"
Few live with other peoples style. As an extreme example of this, our lovely neighbours spent a lot of money putting in a kitchen that they liked. They moved to Scotland and the new owners (wife) didn't like the kitchen and had it ripped out and spent zillions putting another one in that was more to her taste...
Which is why most tied/rental/temporary accommodation tends towards the bland and inoffensive.
What we have here appears to be a couple who want to spend a fortune they don't have making a lifestyle statement that someone else may then have to live with.
For Boris, too, is mortal.
Eldest Granddaughter and her partner are in the process of buying a 'pre-owned' house .... well he's buying, she's a post grad student ..... and the 'white goods', which are being left, are black. Not Eldest Granddaughter's taste at all. Nor her partners, apparently.
Presumably they can be replaced when she gets her qualification .
Perhaps in the list of reasons the Prime Minister might retire before 2024, this provides more evidence that Boris is cash-strapped.
Last week as I was applauding Boris's performance, other PBers debated whether he looked 80 or just 70 years old. If Boris does hope to make serious money on the American lecture circuit, he must keep a rheumy eye on the calendar.
Theresa May outdoes Boris Johnson with £1m from speech fees
... The former prime minister earned £136,000 last month [September] for delivering a speech in Seoul on global responses to the coronavirus pandemic. It takes her total for after-dinner talks so far this year to more than £1 million.
The fee means that the MP for Maidenhead appears to have surpassed Boris Johnson for after-dinner earning power.
Now idea about Mr Broon. Is it expensive to pay for a visit from a world-saving raincloud? Though I seem to recall things being channelled via a charity.
There is a paradox in ex-pol's speech money. 100s of k is a lot of money for a speech.
An honest speech by Blair (after all, a lively & entertaining speaker) on why we went to war in Iraq is well worth that amount. Or an honest speech by Melania Trump on her married life with the Donald in the White House could not fail to grip. But, these are the least likely people to tell the truth.
The paradox is the people worth paying 100k a speech are the ones most likely to lie their heads off.
Now, Theresa would not lie her head off, but she is not worth paying a 100k a speech to hear.
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
Wowsers if that's true. I just can't get my head around the mindset that would propel me to join in a conspiracy to lie to the police and then lie in court. One or two people for personal gain / out of fear maybe. But 9 of them for internecine fighting inside a political party?
Perhaps Tories angling to persuade people to vote Tory to stop the SNP might want to consider what they are asking. One party asking for your vote is openly corrupt, lies to pervert the rule of law for political reasons, and the other is the SNP.
People who offer them behave like they’re giving you a pair of binoculars, but usually it turns out they have been looking through the wrong end?
Analogies are a real problem in teaching Physics because it is easy to take the whole thing beyond the point where the analogy works. Thinking of electrical circuits as being like water in a pipe is good for some aspects of teaching current, but electrons in a wire can't leak outs, I do know about short circuits: the point is you can't run out of electrons in the wire), nor can they freeze...
I tended to stay clear of the "water in the pipe" analogy as it never explained energy and potential difference throughout the circuit in a satisfactory way.
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
Wowsers if that's true. I just can't get my head around the mindset that would propel me to join in a conspiracy to lie to the police and then lie in court. One or two people for personal gain / out of fear maybe. But 9 of them for internecine fighting inside a political party?
Perhaps Tories angling to persuade people to vote Tory to stop the SNP might want to consider what they are asking. One party asking for your vote is openly corrupt, lies to pervert the rule of law for political reasons, and the other is the SNP.
A good time to be a LibDem!
OT but might I ask - how many skips did you need in the end to clear the junk left by the previous owners, or was it none at all? I never did see the end of the story, please ...
There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.
But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.
tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.
But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?
I was going to post on the previous thread that it's the landlords responsbility for the fixtures of a rental property.
And the Government was happy to spend £30k doing the work - the fact everything has to be unique is Boris and Carrie's problem no-one elses.
Cyclefree and Cyclefree's daughter is more likely to see my money than Boris's charity is.
You don't have to contribute. The problem is now neutralised and redecoration will not be the source of Daily Mail and others smears going foreward
Doubt it.
They'll be going after lists of donors from the charity.
Maybe arguably doing work for a public purpose, therefore subject to FOI.
Adjacent -ish in law, see the legal process wrt Duchy of Cornwall.
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
Wowsers if that's true. I just can't get my head around the mindset that would propel me to join in a conspiracy to lie to the police and then lie in court. One or two people for personal gain / out of fear maybe. But 9 of them for internecine fighting inside a political party?
Perhaps Tories angling to persuade people to vote Tory to stop the SNP might want to consider what they are asking. One party asking for your vote is openly corrupt, lies to pervert the rule of law for political reasons, and the other is the SNP.
A good time to be a LibDem!
Craig Murray has got pulled in for one, potentially for Contempt of Court, under the alleged possibility of jigsaw identification. He has written about it.
On a more clear cut basis, someone just got 6 months for naming two (?) of the women on twitter.
At the moment those numbers for the Tories and Labour look very similar to the 1992 election, which is still an improvement for Labour as the last election was closer to the 1983 or 1987 election
I think we'll overtake Israel for vaccines per 100 people in July
I doubt it, Israel will be approaching the limit and they're already discussing extending the programme to kids ahead of the expected approval of Pfizer for them. I think we can conceivably reach 145-150 doses per hundred by then, Israel will probably be reaching around 170-180 as they'll jabbing kids by then.
Leaving aside the EU for a moment, if you take a step back and think about it, getting a measurable percentage of the WORLD vaccinated within 3 months of vaccine approval is pretty damn good going.
Perhaps in the list of reasons the Prime Minister might retire before 2024, this provides more evidence that Boris is cash-strapped.
Last week as I was applauding Boris's performance, other PBers debated whether he looked 80 or just 70 years old. If Boris does hope to make serious money on the American lecture circuit, he must keep a rheumy eye on the calendar.
Theresa May outdoes Boris Johnson with £1m from speech fees
... The former prime minister earned £136,000 last month [September] for delivering a speech in Seoul on global responses to the coronavirus pandemic. It takes her total for after-dinner talks so far this year to more than £1 million.
The fee means that the MP for Maidenhead appears to have surpassed Boris Johnson for after-dinner earning power.
Now idea about Mr Broon. Is it expensive to pay for a visit from a world-saving raincloud? Though I seem to recall things being channelled via a charity.
There is a paradox in ex-pol's speech money. 100s of k is a lot of money for a speech.
An honest speech by Blair (after all, a lively & entertaining speaker) on why we went to war in Iraq is well worth that amount. Or an honest speech by Melania Trump on her married life with the Donald in the White House could not fail to grip. But, these are the least likely people to tell the truth.
The paradox is the people worth paying 100k a speech are the ones most likely to lie their heads off.
Now, Theresa would not lie her head off, but she is not worth paying a 100k a speech to hear.
Surely a lot of it is about egos all around, and it's not about how much you spent as an individual because there won't be one person in the audience
Eg if 1,360 people in the audience each are getting to hear a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom speak (on whatever subject) that's costing £100 each not £136k for one person.
I heard the late Shimon Peres speak at the 2003 NUS Conference and it was electrifying. I doubt he was paid, it was a fringe Jewish society event that everyone either went to or protested outside, the main hall was abandoned as that fringe took over fully. Very good and something I'd never forget. I can well understand why people pay for speakers like that and there's nothing dodgy about it.
Theresa May is no Shimon Peres but still she is a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom whether she should have been or not.
Perhaps in the list of reasons the Prime Minister might retire before 2024, this provides more evidence that Boris is cash-strapped.
Last week as I was applauding Boris's performance, other PBers debated whether he looked 80 or just 70 years old. If Boris does hope to make serious money on the American lecture circuit, he must keep a rheumy eye on the calendar.
Theresa May outdoes Boris Johnson with £1m from speech fees
... The former prime minister earned £136,000 last month [September] for delivering a speech in Seoul on global responses to the coronavirus pandemic. It takes her total for after-dinner talks so far this year to more than £1 million.
The fee means that the MP for Maidenhead appears to have surpassed Boris Johnson for after-dinner earning power.
Now idea about Mr Broon. Is it expensive to pay for a visit from a world-saving raincloud? Though I seem to recall things being channelled via a charity.
There is a paradox in ex-pol's speech money. 100s of k is a lot of money for a speech.
An honest speech by Blair (after all, a lively & entertaining speaker) on why we went to war in Iraq is well worth that amount. Or an honest speech by Melania Trump on her married life with the Donald in the White House could not fail to grip. But, these are the least likely people to tell the truth.
The paradox is the people worth paying 100k a speech are the ones most likely to lie their heads off.
Now, Theresa would not lie her head off, but she is not worth paying a 100k a speech to hear.
Perhaps free from the chains of high office Mrs May will cut loose and shoot the lights out.
There is charity law in this country and those setting up or running a charity are under strict legal obligations. (Full disclosure: I've recently been appointed a Chair of Trustees of an educational charity so am very conscious of trustees' legal obligations.)
No 10 is owned by the state which is responsible for its upkeep. The flat for the PM is a benefit in kind on which the PM has to pay tax. I imagine that its upkeep is also the state's responsibility. If the PM and/or Carrie want to do it up to suit themselves they can but at their expense - just as the Camerons did.
But regardless of whether the wallpaper comes from Colefax & Fowler or DoItAll, home decoration is not a charitable purpose. So I am puzzled on what legal basis such a charity could properly be set up.
If what is meant is that a man earning ca. £140 k pa thinks himself "poor" and wants to be considered a "charitable case", quite apart from the nauseating sense of entitlement and tin ear for those who really are poor, this raises significant issues of probity and conflicts of interest if people donate money - whatever it is used for - to the PM.
The French must be laughing their socks off at how Les Rosbifs do "political scandal", having just seen Sarkozy show us Gallic scandal. A proper one. Bribery and everything. With added jail time.
No jail time. He won't spend a minute inside a jail.
Quite amusing and (for me) not at all offensive. A welcome contrast to the crass "How about I identify as a penguin?" type gurning that one usually sees in this space.
And Boris has got away with the tens of thousands of Covid deaths that the media had tried to lay at his door. Because....soft furnishings.
Boris doesn't have any deaths at his door, disease happens. Pandemics happen. That is nature.
What mankind can do is develop vaccines and along with Israel the UK is first and one of the best in the world for that.
So let's all talk about wallpaper that is not being billed to taxpayers. 🙄
Philip, if you can't see this story as at the very least looking very dodgy, can I suggest you book an eye test? I have it on good authority that there is a very good optician in County Durham.
Copying the charity the Americans have used for decades?
If that's your definition of dodgy then you have an extraordinarily low threshold for dodgy. I'll pass thanks.
Considering this charity was first introduced by LBJ its funny I've never heard about the scandal around this associated with LBJ before? I thought LBJ was disliked because of Vietnam, not because of wallpapers or magnolia. Learn something every day.
Don't be an utter nitwit. LBJ was one of the most corrupt politicians in recent US history. The Caro biography is eye opening about his behaviour.
Also charity law in the UK and the US are not the same. A charity here cannot be set up for any old purpose whatsoever. And there are obvious issues with people giving money to the PM.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
Wowsers if that's true. I just can't get my head around the mindset that would propel me to join in a conspiracy to lie to the police and then lie in court. One or two people for personal gain / out of fear maybe. But 9 of them for internecine fighting inside a political party?
Perhaps Tories angling to persuade people to vote Tory to stop the SNP might want to consider what they are asking. One party asking for your vote is openly corrupt, lies to pervert the rule of law for political reasons, and the other is the SNP.
A good time to be a LibDem!
It seems to me, looking from afar, that the reality of this case is probably somewhere in between.
Salmond obviously wasn't a monk and says so himself. He liked a drink and had an amorous nature - that's not illegal. He was also a powerful man, both physically and in terms of people's careers and so on. In reality, there probably were situations where his understanding of what was happening differed from his guest's understanding, and where his judgment was awry - where he felt he was being romantic and they felt pressured. A court determined that there wasn't evidence there to convict, so he's an innocent man.
But not every person who walks free from court an innocent person is a victim of a stitch up. For many it's just circumstance - there is evidence that they may be guilty, prosecutors acted in good faith, but a full hearing of the evidence determines they are not guilty.
I feel sympathy for anyone in Salmond's situation in that an investigation and trial are awful to go through as an innocent person. I also feel sympathy for others involved in the case - maybe some accusers exaggerated for political reasons, but it's very likely to be true some were very upset about the situation as they saw it.
On the other side of it, I assume the general nature of Salmond's behaviour after late night meetings was the subject of gossip, but the details were not known and whether or not any crime was involved was uncertain. So when the story began to break, political rivals saw the opportunity to rid themselves of a troublesome priest... while at the same time it was possible for those involved to convince themselves that they were acting to help alleged victims. Did it involve Nicola Sturgeon concocting a tissue of lies with wicked plotters? Probably not. But it probably did involve a degree of encouragement of accusers and putting pressure on investigators and prosecutors.
It's a sad as well as politically damaging story. Few people come out of it well, but it's not a good versus evil story where you need to decide which is which. It's a story about significant human flaws.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
Plus certain planning reforms in London to improve supply.
The French must be laughing their socks off at how Les Rosbifs do "political scandal", having just seen Sarkozy show us Gallic scandal. A proper one. Bribery and everything. With added jail time.
No jail time. He won't spend a minute inside a jail.
Well, of course not. This is France we are talking. But it will mean he has a tag and can't leave the house. I'm sure most Frenchmen would consider it a gross infringement of his civil rights if he wasn't free to take a mistress and visit her...
People who offer them behave like they’re giving you a pair of binoculars, but usually it turns out they have been looking through the wrong end?
Analogies are a real problem in teaching Physics because it is easy to take the whole thing beyond the point where the analogy works. Thinking of electrical circuits as being like water in a pipe is good for some aspects of teaching current, but electrons in a wire can't leak outs, I do know about short circuits: the point is you can't run out of electrons in the wire), nor can they freeze...
I tended to stay clear of the "water in the pipe" analogy as it never explained energy and potential difference throughout the circuit in a satisfactory way.
You can do it in terms of pressure, but as the analogy is usually being used with students who haven't done pressure yet that doesn't help.
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
Wowsers if that's true. I just can't get my head around the mindset that would propel me to join in a conspiracy to lie to the police and then lie in court. One or two people for personal gain / out of fear maybe. But 9 of them for internecine fighting inside a political party?
Perhaps Tories angling to persuade people to vote Tory to stop the SNP might want to consider what they are asking. One party asking for your vote is openly corrupt, lies to pervert the rule of law for political reasons, and the other is the SNP.
A good time to be a LibDem!
It seems to me, looking from afar, that the reality of this case is probably somewhere in between.
Salmond obviously wasn't a monk and says so himself. He liked a drink and had an amorous nature - that's not illegal. He was also a powerful man, both physically and in terms of people's careers and so on. In reality, there probably were situations where his understanding of what was happening differed from his guest's understanding, and where his judgment was awry - where he felt he was being romantic and they felt pressured. A court determined that there wasn't evidence there to convict, so he's an innocent man.
But not every person who walks free from court an innocent person is a victim of a stitch up. For many it's just circumstance - there is evidence that they may be guilty, prosecutors acted in good faith, but a full hearing of the evidence determines they are not guilty.
I feel sympathy for anyone in Salmond's situation in that an investigation and trial are awful to go through as an innocent person. I also feel sympathy for others involved in the case - maybe some accusers exaggerated for political reasons, but it's very likely to be true some were very upset about the situation as they saw it.
On the other side of it, I assume the general nature of Salmond's behaviour after late night meetings was the subject of gossip, but the details were not known and whether or not any crime was involved was uncertain. So when the story began to break, political rivals saw the opportunity to rid themselves of a troublesome priest... while at the same time it was possible for those involved to convince themselves that they were acting to help alleged victims. Did it involve Nicola Sturgeon concocting a tissue of lies with wicked plotters? Probably not. But it probably did involve a degree of encouragement of accusers and putting pressure on investigators and prosecutors.
It's a sad as well as politically damaging story. Few people come out of it well, but it's not a good versus evil story where you need to decide which is which. It's a story about significant human flaws.
All true. It's also probably true that while Sturgeon's original actions were probably understandable even if flawed, it is the attempted cover up now that is far more damaging.
Nobody made the PM or his wife redecorate. I have this crazy idea that this voluntary act of expenditure should be funded by those that chose to make it. And who also live there.
Only this grasping clown could imagine that his latest trick's vast redecoration bill should be picked up by "charity". Prime Ministers and their Spouses have complained about the Downing Street accommodation since times past - and yet all have resisted claiming that "charity" should pick up the bill as they redecorated "for the nation".
But lets not look at that. Far more fun to look north at he said she said as we get to the heart of the vast SNP conspiracy that culminated in 9 women deliberately perjuring themselves as part of a plot to jail the former leader of the SNP to advance the cause of the SNP or whatever.
Re your last paragraph it is the SNP involved in their own civil war, and as a matter of interest did you listen to all of Salmond’s testimony and if so not recognise just how serious this is for the SNP and has nothing to do with anything south of the border
As I have posted repeatedly, there is a lot of heat and light being generated by the central event. Others are fascinated by the heat and light and opportunities for outrage based off it. I am far more interested in the central event which is the source of the heat and light.
According to Salmond, there is a conspiracy against him within the SNP which culminated in 9 women making entirely false and malicious allegations against him to the police and on the witness stand. These women, and the SNP/government bigwigs, were supposedly motivated by the desire to have Salmond carted away to prison and thus out of the way politically.
As I do not for a minute believe this central allegation, I am not really interested in the heat and the light generated from it. You may want it to be serious for the SNP for political reasons, but wanting something doesn't always make it fact. Especially when the second part of your narrative is that as the SNP are crooks you have to vote Tory to get them out. Because the idea that people vote Tory to remove the stench of corruption and cronyism is laughable.
That is not the central allegation for me and it does not have to be true for this to be of no moment. The issues include:
Did Crown Office work with the SG and members of the SNP to achieve the conviction of Alex Salmond in breach of their strict tradition of complete independence?
How did the Scottish government fail to comply with a search warrant in respect of the production of documents?
Did Sturgeon's sudden decision to change the policy of the SG to include former Ministers and then remove herself from the process mean that it was all about trying to destroy Salmond?
Why is Leslie Evans still employed?
Did her husband put pressure on Crown Office and the police to prosecute Salmond?
Did Sturgeon receive advice in October that she was going to lose the judicial review but decide to keep it going until January at considerable expense to the public purse in the hope that a criminal prosecution would overtake it?
Did Sturgeon lie to Parliament when she says that she "forgot" about the meeting on 29th March; or when she "forgot" about the complaints the previous November from Edinburgh airport; or when she "forgot" about secret or at least undeclared meetings with her Principal Civil Servant about changing the policy (the notes of these meeting having been mysteriously destroyed)?
Has Sturgeon been using public funds to fight litigations that were not in the public interest and to push for a prosecution that was very much in her interests?
These questions and others really go to the root of whether the rule of law applies in Scotland; whether our prosecution service is independent; about whether our Civil Service has been corrupted and whether democratic norms still operate. They are not dependent upon whether or not Salmond is a sex pest.
Some catching up to do elsewhere but for us some reasons to be cheerful.
Waiting for 17 May for cafes etc to open seems overly cautious to me but, as Boris says, "the eager pecker is pressing at the fly of constraint". (Or something like that.)
Poor attempt to smear Johnson for doing something so that it doesn't come out of the public purse.
Or they could just.... Not redecorate and live with TMay's "John Lewis furniture nightmare" (quote from The Times), like any normal person would.
Besides, everyone knows that there's no point redecorating when you've just had a baby. Mark my words, it'll need redoing faster than you can say "Darling, how many times have I asked you to keep the Sharpies out of Wilfed's reach?"
Few live with other peoples style. As an extreme example of this, our lovely neighbours spent a lot of money putting in a kitchen that they liked. They moved to Scotland and the new owners (wife) didn't like the kitchen and had it ripped out and spent zillions putting another one in that was more to her taste...
Which is why most tied/rental/temporary accommodation tends towards the bland and inoffensive.
What we have here appears to be a couple who want to spend a fortune they don't have making a lifestyle statement that someone else may then have to live with.
For Boris, too, is mortal.
Eldest Granddaughter and her partner are in the process of buying a 'pre-owned' house .... well he's buying, she's a post grad student ..... and the 'white goods', which are being left, are black. Not Eldest Granddaughter's taste at all. Nor her partners, apparently.
Presumably they can be replaced when she gets her qualification .
I think it might be before then; she's in yr 1 of what's supposed to be a 3 yr course.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
Nobody made the PM or his wife redecorate. I have this crazy idea that this voluntary act of expenditure should be funded by those that chose to make it. And who also live there.
Only this grasping clown could imagine that his latest trick's vast redecoration bill should be picked up by "charity". Prime Ministers and their Spouses have complained about the Downing Street accommodation since times past - and yet all have resisted claiming that "charity" should pick up the bill as they redecorated "for the nation".
But lets not look at that. Far more fun to look north at he said she said as we get to the heart of the vast SNP conspiracy that culminated in 9 women deliberately perjuring themselves as part of a plot to jail the former leader of the SNP to advance the cause of the SNP or whatever.
Re your last paragraph it is the SNP involved in their own civil war, and as a matter of interest did you listen to all of Salmond’s testimony and if so not recognise just how serious this is for the SNP and has nothing to do with anything south of the border
As I have posted repeatedly, there is a lot of heat and light being generated by the central event. Others are fascinated by the heat and light and opportunities for outrage based off it. I am far more interested in the central event which is the source of the heat and light.
According to Salmond, there is a conspiracy against him within the SNP which culminated in 9 women making entirely false and malicious allegations against him to the police and on the witness stand. These women, and the SNP/government bigwigs, were supposedly motivated by the desire to have Salmond carted away to prison and thus out of the way politically.
As I do not for a minute believe this central allegation, I am not really interested in the heat and the light generated from it. You may want it to be serious for the SNP for political reasons, but wanting something doesn't always make it fact. Especially when the second part of your narrative is that as the SNP are crooks you have to vote Tory to get them out. Because the idea that people vote Tory to remove the stench of corruption and cronyism is laughable.
That is not the central allegation for me and it does not have to be true for this to be of no moment. The issues include:
Did Crown Office work with the SG and members of the SNP to achieve the conviction of Alex Salmond in breach of their strict tradition of complete independence?
How did the Scottish government fail to comply with a search warrant in respect of the production of documents?
Did Sturgeon's sudden decision to change the policy of the SG to include former Ministers and then remove herself from the process mean that it was all about trying to destroy Salmond?
Why is Leslie Evans still employed?
Did her husband put pressure on Crown Office and the police to prosecute Salmond?
Did Sturgeon receive advice in October that she was going to lose the judicial review but decide to keep it going until January at considerable expense to the public purse in the hope that a criminal prosecution would overtake it?
Did Sturgeon lie to Parliament when she says that she "forgot" about the meeting on 29th March; or when she "forgot" about the complaints the previous November from Edinburgh airport; or when she "forgot" about secret or at least undeclared meetings with her Principal Civil Servant about changing the policy (the notes of these meeting having been mysteriously destroyed)?
Has Sturgeon been using public funds to fight litigations that were not in the public interest and to push for a prosecution that was very much in her interests?
These questions and others really go to the root of whether the rule of law applies in Scotland; whether our prosecution service is independent; about whether our Civil Service has been corrupted and whether democratic norms still operate. They are not dependent upon whether or not Salmond is a sex pest.
As is always the case - the coverup is way more serious than the initial accusation...
Quite amusing and (for me) not at all offensive. A welcome contrast to the crass "How about I identify as a penguin?" type gurning that one usually sees in this space.
Some catching up to do elsewhere but for us some reasons to be cheerful.
Waiting for 17 May for cafes etc to open seems overly cautious to me but, as Boris says, "the eager pecker is pressing at the fly of constraint". (Or something like that.)
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
Wowsers if that's true. I just can't get my head around the mindset that would propel me to join in a conspiracy to lie to the police and then lie in court. One or two people for personal gain / out of fear maybe. But 9 of them for internecine fighting inside a political party?
Perhaps Tories angling to persuade people to vote Tory to stop the SNP might want to consider what they are asking. One party asking for your vote is openly corrupt, lies to pervert the rule of law for political reasons, and the other is the SNP.
A good time to be a LibDem!
It seems to me, looking from afar, that the reality of this case is probably somewhere in between.
Salmond obviously wasn't a monk and says so himself. He liked a drink and had an amorous nature - that's not illegal. He was also a powerful man, both physically and in terms of people's careers and so on. In reality, there probably were situations where his understanding of what was happening differed from his guest's understanding, and where his judgment was awry - where he felt he was being romantic and they felt pressured. A court determined that there wasn't evidence there to convict, so he's an innocent man.
But not every person who walks free from court an innocent person is a victim of a stitch up. For many it's just circumstance - there is evidence that they may be guilty, prosecutors acted in good faith, but a full hearing of the evidence determines they are not guilty.
I feel sympathy for anyone in Salmond's situation in that an investigation and trial are awful to go through as an innocent person. I also feel sympathy for others involved in the case - maybe some accusers exaggerated for political reasons, but it's very likely to be true some were very upset about the situation as they saw it.
On the other side of it, I assume the general nature of Salmond's behaviour after late night meetings was the subject of gossip, but the details were not known and whether or not any crime was involved was uncertain. So when the story began to break, political rivals saw the opportunity to rid themselves of a troublesome priest... while at the same time it was possible for those involved to convince themselves that they were acting to help alleged victims. Did it involve Nicola Sturgeon concocting a tissue of lies with wicked plotters? Probably not. But it probably did involve a degree of encouragement of accusers and putting pressure on investigators and prosecutors.
It's a sad as well as politically damaging story. Few people come out of it well, but it's not a good versus evil story where you need to decide which is which. It's a story about significant human flaws.
All true. It's also probably true that while Sturgeon's original actions were probably understandable even if flawed, it is the attempted cover up now that is far more damaging.
A very old story.
Oh what a tangled web we weave! Or something.
On this, did anyone else watch the Max Clifford story last night. Another powerful individual brought down largely by becoming over-confident. And what his daughter was doing trying a posthumous appeal I cannot imagine.
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
Wowsers if that's true. I just can't get my head around the mindset that would propel me to join in a conspiracy to lie to the police and then lie in court. One or two people for personal gain / out of fear maybe. But 9 of them for internecine fighting inside a political party?
Perhaps Tories angling to persuade people to vote Tory to stop the SNP might want to consider what they are asking. One party asking for your vote is openly corrupt, lies to pervert the rule of law for political reasons, and the other is the SNP.
A good time to be a LibDem!
OT but might I ask - how many skips did you need in the end to clear the junk left by the previous owners, or was it none at all? I never did see the end of the story, please ...
None! They had their own skip (overflowing!) and we agreed with them a substantial inventory they were leaving with the house. Have removed some of the paintings / prints which are now in store above the garage, and have demolished some tatty wardrobes. The rest we've kept!
Main concern at the moment is the boiler. There's a fault in that you can't have heating on without hot water. Getting someone in to fix that this week. Suspect its replace the boiler (which looks like it was installed an eon ago) as its drinking oil at an alarming rate of knots.
And Boris has got away with the tens of thousands of Covid deaths that the media had tried to lay at his door. Because....soft furnishings.
Boris doesn't have any deaths at his door, disease happens. Pandemics happen. That is nature.
What mankind can do is develop vaccines and along with Israel the UK is first and one of the best in the world for that.
So let's all talk about wallpaper that is not being billed to taxpayers. 🙄
Um, glad to hear you are firing on all cylinders.
In time there will be a public enquiry about all this and it may well find that actions taken caused further deaths.
Now, I am more a fan of the "heat of battle" theory of coping with such events but we must all wait for that enquiry before we can say with any certainty whatsoever that he "doesn't have any deaths at his door". Or that he does, for that matter.
All prime ministers will have "deaths at their door". Decisions have consequences and if you are leading a government you will need to make decisions that will kill people, often on the basis that saving those lives would cost too much money rather than the more dramatic "let's bomb X". With the benefit of hindsight we can see a number of things we would now do differently, and in many cases at the time there were a lot of people calling for what now appears to be the better decision, but in most cases there were those calling for the opposite. I think it would be essential to have a major enquiry (inquiry?) into the government's response if only to learn what lessons we can, but it it is just designed to find fault then those who might end up being blamed will not be prepared to cooperate and we will not learn nearly as much as we might.
Excellent post.
Yes. In all inquiries into incidents and accidents where people were not acting with deliberate malice, it is almost pointless to proceed unless the purpose is to learn, rather than to blame.
Now try doing a regional comparison of how equal the UK is when measured by accumulated wealth net of debt, including housing assets and mortgages.
Ok, but I live in my house so it's not exactly wealth I can easily liquidate. I don't understand the bitterness from northerners over high house prices in the south. We have to live in them and all its done for us is mean we've needed to take out a gigantic mortgage. It would genuinely be great for all of us of house prices were more realistic in the south as they are in the North.
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
Wowsers if that's true. I just can't get my head around the mindset that would propel me to join in a conspiracy to lie to the police and then lie in court. One or two people for personal gain / out of fear maybe. But 9 of them for internecine fighting inside a political party?
Perhaps Tories angling to persuade people to vote Tory to stop the SNP might want to consider what they are asking. One party asking for your vote is openly corrupt, lies to pervert the rule of law for political reasons, and the other is the SNP.
A good time to be a LibDem!
It seems to me, looking from afar, that the reality of this case is probably somewhere in between.
Salmond obviously wasn't a monk and says so himself. He liked a drink and had an amorous nature - that's not illegal. He was also a powerful man, both physically and in terms of people's careers and so on. In reality, there probably were situations where his understanding of what was happening differed from his guest's understanding, and where his judgment was awry - where he felt he was being romantic and they felt pressured. A court determined that there wasn't evidence there to convict, so he's an innocent man.
But not every person who walks free from court an innocent person is a victim of a stitch up. For many it's just circumstance - there is evidence that they may be guilty, prosecutors acted in good faith, but a full hearing of the evidence determines they are not guilty.
I feel sympathy for anyone in Salmond's situation in that an investigation and trial are awful to go through as an innocent person. I also feel sympathy for others involved in the case - maybe some accusers exaggerated for political reasons, but it's very likely to be true some were very upset about the situation as they saw it.
On the other side of it, I assume the general nature of Salmond's behaviour after late night meetings was the subject of gossip, but the details were not known and whether or not any crime was involved was uncertain. So when the story began to break, political rivals saw the opportunity to rid themselves of a troublesome priest... while at the same time it was possible for those involved to convince themselves that they were acting to help alleged victims. Did it involve Nicola Sturgeon concocting a tissue of lies with wicked plotters? Probably not. But it probably did involve a degree of encouragement of accusers and putting pressure on investigators and prosecutors.
It's a sad as well as politically damaging story. Few people come out of it well, but it's not a good versus evil story where you need to decide which is which. It's a story about significant human flaws.
I take your point, but when it comes to making a claim in court there is no in-between. Your evidence either is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth or it is not. Salmond alleges a conspiracy of lies against him, that 9 women actively chose to actively perjure themselves in court. Every other claim accusation and suggestion spins out from this central plurality. And I just don't buy the "they all lied" story". Have no idea of their identity, don't want to know. I just don't see how that many people can stand up and do that - knowing what it will do if they are believed, knowing that it is a lie. And not even a lie for personal gain, one allegedly concocted for factional political gain.
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
Wowsers if that's true. I just can't get my head around the mindset that would propel me to join in a conspiracy to lie to the police and then lie in court. One or two people for personal gain / out of fear maybe. But 9 of them for internecine fighting inside a political party?
Perhaps Tories angling to persuade people to vote Tory to stop the SNP might want to consider what they are asking. One party asking for your vote is openly corrupt, lies to pervert the rule of law for political reasons, and the other is the SNP.
A good time to be a LibDem!
OT but might I ask - how many skips did you need in the end to clear the junk left by the previous owners, or was it none at all? I never did see the end of the story, please ...
None! They had their own skip (overflowing!) and we agreed with them a substantial inventory they were leaving with the house. Have removed some of the paintings / prints which are now in store above the garage, and have demolished some tatty wardrobes. The rest we've kept!
Main concern at the moment is the boiler. There's a fault in that you can't have heating on without hot water. Getting someone in to fix that this week. Suspect its replace the boiler (which looks like it was installed an eon ago) as its drinking oil at an alarming rate of knots.
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
Wowsers if that's true. I just can't get my head around the mindset that would propel me to join in a conspiracy to lie to the police and then lie in court. One or two people for personal gain / out of fear maybe. But 9 of them for internecine fighting inside a political party?
Perhaps Tories angling to persuade people to vote Tory to stop the SNP might want to consider what they are asking. One party asking for your vote is openly corrupt, lies to pervert the rule of law for political reasons, and the other is the SNP.
A good time to be a LibDem!
It seems to me, looking from afar, that the reality of this case is probably somewhere in between.
Salmond obviously wasn't a monk and says so himself. He liked a drink and had an amorous nature - that's not illegal. He was also a powerful man, both physically and in terms of people's careers and so on. In reality, there probably were situations where his understanding of what was happening differed from his guest's understanding, and where his judgment was awry - where he felt he was being romantic and they felt pressured. A court determined that there wasn't evidence there to convict, so he's an innocent man.
But not every person who walks free from court an innocent person is a victim of a stitch up. For many it's just circumstance - there is evidence that they may be guilty, prosecutors acted in good faith, but a full hearing of the evidence determines they are not guilty.
I feel sympathy for anyone in Salmond's situation in that an investigation and trial are awful to go through as an innocent person. I also feel sympathy for others involved in the case - maybe some accusers exaggerated for political reasons, but it's very likely to be true some were very upset about the situation as they saw it.
On the other side of it, I assume the general nature of Salmond's behaviour after late night meetings was the subject of gossip, but the details were not known and whether or not any crime was involved was uncertain. So when the story began to break, political rivals saw the opportunity to rid themselves of a troublesome priest... while at the same time it was possible for those involved to convince themselves that they were acting to help alleged victims. Did it involve Nicola Sturgeon concocting a tissue of lies with wicked plotters? Probably not. But it probably did involve a degree of encouragement of accusers and putting pressure on investigators and prosecutors.
It's a sad as well as politically damaging story. Few people come out of it well, but it's not a good versus evil story where you need to decide which is which. It's a story about significant human flaws.
I take your point, but when it comes to making a claim in court there is no in-between. Your evidence either is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth or it is not. Salmond alleges a conspiracy of lies against him, that 9 women actively chose to actively perjure themselves in court. Every other claim accusation and suggestion spins out from this central plurality. And I just don't buy the "they all lied" story". Have no idea of their identity, don't want to know. I just don't see how that many people can stand up and do that - knowing what it will do if they are believed, knowing that it is a lie. And not even a lie for personal gain, one allegedly concocted for factional political gain.
Does he actually confirm they all perjured themselves?
I thought he was careful to avoid that and instead is making very serious allegations about others.
More than one thing can be true. The women can be telling the truth, while Salmond's allegations about dodgy Crown Office behaviour can also be true.
Why doesn't Scotland have a DPP outside of the Cabinet?
Until devolution the Lord Advocate was outside the Cabinet. The LA ran an entirely independent fiefdom accountable only to the PM of the day. After devolution he was brought into the cabinet as a law officer with a dual role of being the legal advisor to the government. That was a mistake.
The median occupancy of a PM is about 5-8 years, and it's not worth spending the money when you're only there Monday to Friday (when not travelling) and working all of the time.
If it needed a refurb, I'd ask the estate to just do the basics.
Nobody made the PM or his wife redecorate. I have this crazy idea that this voluntary act of expenditure should be funded by those that chose to make it. And who also live there.
Only this grasping clown could imagine that his latest trick's vast redecoration bill should be picked up by "charity". Prime Ministers and their Spouses have complained about the Downing Street accommodation since times past - and yet all have resisted claiming that "charity" should pick up the bill as they redecorated "for the nation".
But lets not look at that. Far more fun to look north at he said she said as we get to the heart of the vast SNP conspiracy that culminated in 9 women deliberately perjuring themselves as part of a plot to jail the former leader of the SNP to advance the cause of the SNP or whatever.
Re your last paragraph it is the SNP involved in their own civil war, and as a matter of interest did you listen to all of Salmond’s testimony and if so not recognise just how serious this is for the SNP and has nothing to do with anything south of the border
As I have posted repeatedly, there is a lot of heat and light being generated by the central event. Others are fascinated by the heat and light and opportunities for outrage based off it. I am far more interested in the central event which is the source of the heat and light.
According to Salmond, there is a conspiracy against him within the SNP which culminated in 9 women making entirely false and malicious allegations against him to the police and on the witness stand. These women, and the SNP/government bigwigs, were supposedly motivated by the desire to have Salmond carted away to prison and thus out of the way politically.
As I do not for a minute believe this central allegation, I am not really interested in the heat and the light generated from it. You may want it to be serious for the SNP for political reasons, but wanting something doesn't always make it fact. Especially when the second part of your narrative is that as the SNP are crooks you have to vote Tory to get them out. Because the idea that people vote Tory to remove the stench of corruption and cronyism is laughable.
That is not the central allegation for me and it does not have to be true for this to be of no moment. The issues include:
Did Crown Office work with the SG and members of the SNP to achieve the conviction of Alex Salmond in breach of their strict tradition of complete independence?
How did the Scottish government fail to comply with a search warrant in respect of the production of documents?
Did Sturgeon's sudden decision to change the policy of the SG to include former Ministers and then remove herself from the process mean that it was all about trying to destroy Salmond?
Why is Leslie Evans still employed?
Did her husband put pressure on Crown Office and the police to prosecute Salmond?
Did Sturgeon receive advice in October that she was going to lose the judicial review but decide to keep it going until January at considerable expense to the public purse in the hope that a criminal prosecution would overtake it?
Did Sturgeon lie to Parliament when she says that she "forgot" about the meeting on 29th March; or when she "forgot" about the complaints the previous November from Edinburgh airport; or when she "forgot" about secret or at least undeclared meetings with her Principal Civil Servant about changing the policy (the notes of these meeting having been mysteriously destroyed)?
Has Sturgeon been using public funds to fight litigations that were not in the public interest and to push for a prosecution that was very much in her interests?
These questions and others really go to the root of whether the rule of law applies in Scotland; whether our prosecution service is independent; about whether our Civil Service has been corrupted and whether democratic norms still operate. They are not dependent upon whether or not Salmond is a sex pest.
As with malcolmg I take your point even though this still feels like the heat and light rather than the actual issue. Lets start with your first point - "Did Crown Office work with the SG and members of the SNP to achieve the conviction of Alex Salmond in breach of their strict tradition of complete independence? "
A valid question. So we have police complaints made by 9 people against AS which in this scenario were not strong enough to make a conviction likely. Pressure was brought, a trial convened, the women testified. It still comes back to 9 women having allegedly been persuaded to lie - had they not there there are police complaints and no prosecution witnesses.
The rest flow from this. As for pushing a judicial review longer and spending cash unnecessarily, how is this somehow the smoking gun that both brings down Sturgeon and persuades people to instead vote for other parties like the Tories or Labour before them? I am not justifying it for a minute, merely pointing out that few people give a toss and many of the people who do give a toss support a party who commit the same wastes of public money when they are in government.
Are you some kind of magician, by the way? I see that you have zero posts, notwithstanding the above. Also a total of 20 likes on 0 posts. That's highly impressive, your average per post is... infinite
I do seem to have adopted a somewhat ghostly presence here.. Side effect of the Pfizer?!
I'm glad I had AZ if Pfizer turns you into a ghost.
I can personally testify that AZ can cause horrific symptoms for 48 hours in the under 40s and have heard this anecdotedly from several others as well. Like the worst flu you've ever had, violent shaking tremors and cold sweats that drench the bed.
Conversely everyone I know older than 60 has had nothing more than a sore arm for a day with either vaccine. If this reaction is typical for younger recipients, then if the government is smart, they'll find a way to give something else to the Clean Living Gen Z crowd. Or not only will take-up of Dose 2 seriously lag Dose 1, they'll put back the general vaccine cause for years.
Most likely the strong response in your under 40s was due to prior covid infection.
Mr. Royale, some people have no financial discipline whatsoever. It's an alien mindset to me, but some just like splashing cash and getting themselves pretty things and are then outraged and surprised to discover that purchases come with price tags.
Yes, the stench from this affair is trashing the image of law and order in Scotland, highlighting rank cronyism in governance of a constituent part of the UK - and how everyone is seen as a puppet, only there to implement the interests of the SNP and protect the Dear Leaderene.
But c'mon, as a scandal it doesn't have SOFT FURNISHINGS.....
There is charity law in this country and those setting up or running a charity are under strict legal obligations. (Full disclosure: I've recently been appointed a Chair of Trustees of an educational charity so am very conscious of trustees' legal obligations.)
No 10 is owned by the state which is responsible for its upkeep. The flat for the PM is a benefit in kind on which the PM has to pay tax. I imagine that its upkeep is also the state's responsibility. If the PM and/or Carrie want to do it up to suit themselves they can but at their expense - just as the Camerons did.
But regardless of whether the wallpaper comes from Colefax & Fowler or DoItAll, home decoration is not a charitable purpose. So I am puzzled on what legal basis such a charity could properly be set up.
If what is meant is that a man earning ca. £140 k pa thinks himself "poor" and wants to be considered a "charitable case", quite apart from the nauseating sense of entitlement and tin ear for those who really are poor, this raises significant issues of probity and conflicts of interest if people donate money - whatever it is used for - to the PM.
I agree.
With my activist hat on, the only real opposition mud that has a chance of sticking at the moment is 'Tory cronyism'. This sort of thing plays into that. Which is a shame, because I don't think the 'cronyism' suggestions are enough on their own.
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
Wowsers if that's true. I just can't get my head around the mindset that would propel me to join in a conspiracy to lie to the police and then lie in court. One or two people for personal gain / out of fear maybe. But 9 of them for internecine fighting inside a political party?
Perhaps Tories angling to persuade people to vote Tory to stop the SNP might want to consider what they are asking. One party asking for your vote is openly corrupt, lies to pervert the rule of law for political reasons, and the other is the SNP.
A good time to be a LibDem!
It seems to me, looking from afar, that the reality of this case is probably somewhere in between.
Salmond obviously wasn't a monk and says so himself. He liked a drink and had an amorous nature - that's not illegal. He was also a powerful man, both physically and in terms of people's careers and so on. In reality, there probably were situations where his understanding of what was happening differed from his guest's understanding, and where his judgment was awry - where he felt he was being romantic and they felt pressured. A court determined that there wasn't evidence there to convict, so he's an innocent man.
But not every person who walks free from court an innocent person is a victim of a stitch up. For many it's just circumstance - there is evidence that they may be guilty, prosecutors acted in good faith, but a full hearing of the evidence determines they are not guilty.
I feel sympathy for anyone in Salmond's situation in that an investigation and trial are awful to go through as an innocent person. I also feel sympathy for others involved in the case - maybe some accusers exaggerated for political reasons, but it's very likely to be true some were very upset about the situation as they saw it.
On the other side of it, I assume the general nature of Salmond's behaviour after late night meetings was the subject of gossip, but the details were not known and whether or not any crime was involved was uncertain. So when the story began to break, political rivals saw the opportunity to rid themselves of a troublesome priest... while at the same time it was possible for those involved to convince themselves that they were acting to help alleged victims. Did it involve Nicola Sturgeon concocting a tissue of lies with wicked plotters? Probably not. But it probably did involve a degree of encouragement of accusers and putting pressure on investigators and prosecutors.
It's a sad as well as politically damaging story. Few people come out of it well, but it's not a good versus evil story where you need to decide which is which. It's a story about significant human flaws.
I take your point, but when it comes to making a claim in court there is no in-between. Your evidence either is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth or it is not. Salmond alleges a conspiracy of lies against him, that 9 women actively chose to actively perjure themselves in court. Every other claim accusation and suggestion spins out from this central plurality. And I just don't buy the "they all lied" story". Have no idea of their identity, don't want to know. I just don't see how that many people can stand up and do that - knowing what it will do if they are believed, knowing that it is a lie. And not even a lie for personal gain, one allegedly concocted for factional political gain.
Does he actually confirm they all perjured themselves?
I thought he was careful to avoid that and instead is making very serious allegations about others.
More than one thing can be true. The women can be telling the truth, while Salmond's allegations about dodgy Crown Office behaviour can also be true.
Your latter point is entirely correct - both can be true. However, both are also intertwined. The alleged dodgy Crown Office behaviour was to push for a trial where AS strenuously denies the 9 women's allegations (which means that he absolutely is saying they lied in court).
If the women were telling the truth then there was no conspiracy to convict Salmond for internecine purposes...
People who offer them behave like they’re giving you a pair of binoculars, but usually it turns out they have been looking through the wrong end?
Analogies are a real problem in teaching Physics because it is easy to take the whole thing beyond the point where the analogy works. Thinking of electrical circuits as being like water in a pipe is good for some aspects of teaching current, but electrons in a wire can't leak out (and yes, I do know about short circuits: the point is you can't run out of electrons in the wire), nor can they freeze...
I forget where I read it, but I recall a description of teaching, particular for the young, of being essentially 'lies for children', in that you can give broad concepts and important principles and that is very vital for building asic scientific understanding, but once you really start looking into some of these things as a later student it turns out there are so many complexities and caveats.
That's why so many London workers commute from the south-east.
I'm very interested to see what the season ticket reforms are. It could really help a lot of people looking to do 2-4 days from home.
Probably only 80% of the price for 60% of the travel. I reckon they'll offer me £4k for a 3-day ticket, as opposed to £5.5k for a 7-day one.
I'm not expecting a good deal.
What I'm hoping for is the regulator makes them almost proportional and includes off peak travel in all season tickets plus a certain number of peak journeys per year. So a full season ticket for say £5k gets you 500 peak journeys per year plus off peak travel, £4k gets you 400 plus off peak, £3k gets 300 and so on. It's the fairest system and gives flexibility for when you want to use your peak journeys. Some weeks you might want to just go in one time and others you might want to do a full week in office.
Comments
What is the 30k per annum meant to cover? Is it just redecoration? Or does this fund include all the upkeep/ongoing repairs to the property ?
Repairs to 10 DS will involve the use of heritage craftsmen rather than someone from www.trustatrader.com.
They will charge accordingly.
On the other hand, I do think it's extremely important that the PM is comfortable, happy, has access to outdoors space, and gets good sleep. If the apartments at No. 10 don't facilitate that (even with modifications), then another arrangement should be found. Shouldn't be too hard to find a grace and favour apartment in one of the royal palaces.
The charity approach gives individuals a way to earn the PM's favour, and a lack of transparency here would be highly dubious.
Expect them to be focusing on you. And EU and EU.
The problem with soliciting gifts which personally benefit you and your family is that there is a reason why people are making those gifts rather than (for example) paying for a renovated family room at the local hospital (which would indeed otherwise be paid by the taxpayer). It's to make it so the PM owes them a personal favour, and it's terribly naive to think otherwise.
The idea that a genuine philanthropist can think of no better way to do good deeds than to pay for scatter cushions for Johnson and Symonds is, frankly, ludicrous. A moment's thought will tell you why they are doing it.
Politicians should not touch this sort of thing with a bargepole - it's deeply unwise. There are funds available for maintaining accommodation owned by the Government, and if that isn't enough for the PM's missus-to-be to get everything she wants, then that's a private conversation between the couple themselves. And if a philanthropist comes offering to be "generous", thank them kindly and direct them to their local school, hospital or museum.
Unless they're poor.
You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened.
My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
• Labour voters support a wealth tax
• Labour members support a wealth tax
• Labour donors do not support a wealth tax
Westminster voting intentions
CON: 42%
LAB: 34%
LDEM: 7%
GRN: 6%
via
@Survation
, 23 - 25 Feb
Chgs. w/ 06 Feb
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7966945/David-Camerons-bodyguard-leaves-gun-jet-toilet.html
Now idea about Mr Broon. Is it expensive to pay for a visit from a world-saving raincloud? Though I seem to recall things being channelled via a charity.
Signing off for a while.
Have fun.
It's all going so well isn't it...
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (+3)
LAB: 34% (+1)
LDEM: 7% (-2)
GRN: 6% (-1)
via
@Survation
, 23 - 25 Feb
Chgs. w/ 06 Feb
Starmer supports the Gov't when he probably should be opposing them.
An honest speech by Blair (after all, a lively & entertaining speaker) on why we went to war in Iraq is well worth that amount. Or an honest speech by Melania Trump on her married life with the Donald in the White House could not fail to grip. But, these are the least likely people to tell the truth.
The paradox is the people worth paying 100k a speech are the ones most likely to lie their heads off.
Now, Theresa would not lie her head off, but she is not worth paying a 100k a speech to hear.
Perhaps Tories angling to persuade people to vote Tory to stop the SNP might want to consider what they are asking. One party asking for your vote is openly corrupt, lies to pervert the rule of law for political reasons, and the other is the SNP.
A good time to be a LibDem!
They'll be going after lists of donors from the charity.
Maybe arguably doing work for a public purpose, therefore subject to FOI.
Adjacent -ish in law, see the legal process wrt Duchy of Cornwall.
On a more clear cut basis, someone just got 6 months for naming two (?) of the women on twitter.
What do you expect with wall-to-wall Johnson saving the world in the media?
Can't say Starmer is in overdrive, or even second gear, although Long-Bailey or Pidcock would still be stuck in SWP neutral.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveyantibodydatafortheuk/2march2021#age-analysis-on-the-likelihood-of-testing-positive-for-covid-19-antibodies-in-england-wales-northern-ireland-and-scotland
Smaller sample sizes lead to wider error bars outside England.
This isn't Osborne - it's very Little.
Eg if 1,360 people in the audience each are getting to hear a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom speak (on whatever subject) that's costing £100 each not £136k for one person.
I heard the late Shimon Peres speak at the 2003 NUS Conference and it was electrifying. I doubt he was paid, it was a fringe Jewish society event that everyone either went to or protested outside, the main hall was abandoned as that fringe took over fully. Very good and something I'd never forget. I can well understand why people pay for speakers like that and there's nothing dodgy about it.
Theresa May is no Shimon Peres but still she is a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom whether she should have been or not.
No 10 is owned by the state which is responsible for its upkeep. The flat for the PM is a benefit in kind on which the PM has to pay tax. I imagine that its upkeep is also the state's responsibility. If the PM and/or Carrie want to do it up to suit themselves they can but at their expense - just as the Camerons did.
But regardless of whether the wallpaper comes from Colefax & Fowler or DoItAll, home decoration is not a charitable purpose. So I am puzzled on what legal basis such a charity could properly be set up.
If what is meant is that a man earning ca. £140 k pa thinks himself "poor" and wants to be considered a "charitable case", quite apart from the nauseating sense of entitlement and tin ear for those who really are poor, this raises significant issues of probity and conflicts of interest if people donate money - whatever it is used for - to the PM.
It looks like the archetypal bubble story to me.
Also charity law in the UK and the US are not the same. A charity here cannot be set up for any old purpose whatsoever. And there are obvious issues with people giving money to the PM.
Salmond obviously wasn't a monk and says so himself. He liked a drink and had an amorous nature - that's not illegal. He was also a powerful man, both physically and in terms of people's careers and so on. In reality, there probably were situations where his understanding of what was happening differed from his guest's understanding, and where his judgment was awry - where he felt he was being romantic and they felt pressured. A court determined that there wasn't evidence there to convict, so he's an innocent man.
But not every person who walks free from court an innocent person is a victim of a stitch up. For many it's just circumstance - there is evidence that they may be guilty, prosecutors acted in good faith, but a full hearing of the evidence determines they are not guilty.
I feel sympathy for anyone in Salmond's situation in that an investigation and trial are awful to go through as an innocent person. I also feel sympathy for others involved in the case - maybe some accusers exaggerated for political reasons, but it's very likely to be true some were very upset about the situation as they saw it.
On the other side of it, I assume the general nature of Salmond's behaviour after late night meetings was the subject of gossip, but the details were not known and whether or not any crime was involved was uncertain. So when the story began to break, political rivals saw the opportunity to rid themselves of a troublesome priest... while at the same time it was possible for those involved to convince themselves that they were acting to help alleged victims. Did it involve Nicola Sturgeon concocting a tissue of lies with wicked plotters? Probably not. But it probably did involve a degree of encouragement of accusers and putting pressure on investigators and prosecutors.
It's a sad as well as politically damaging story. Few people come out of it well, but it's not a good versus evil story where you need to decide which is which. It's a story about significant human flaws.
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1366709993341394946?s=20
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
Plus certain planning reforms in London to improve supply.
A very old story.
Did Crown Office work with the SG and members of the SNP to achieve the conviction of Alex Salmond in breach of their strict tradition of complete independence?
How did the Scottish government fail to comply with a search warrant in respect of the production of documents?
Did Sturgeon's sudden decision to change the policy of the SG to include former Ministers and then remove herself from the process mean that it was all about trying to destroy Salmond?
Why is Leslie Evans still employed?
Did her husband put pressure on Crown Office and the police to prosecute Salmond?
Did Sturgeon receive advice in October that she was going to lose the judicial review but decide to keep it going until January at considerable expense to the public purse in the hope that a criminal prosecution would overtake it?
Did Sturgeon lie to Parliament when she says that she "forgot" about the meeting on 29th March; or when she "forgot" about the complaints the previous November from Edinburgh airport; or when she "forgot" about secret or at least undeclared meetings with her Principal Civil Servant about changing the policy (the notes of these meeting having been mysteriously destroyed)?
Has Sturgeon been using public funds to fight litigations that were not in the public interest and to push for a prosecution that was very much in her interests?
These questions and others really go to the root of whether the rule of law applies in Scotland; whether our prosecution service is independent; about whether our Civil Service has been corrupted and whether democratic norms still operate. They are not dependent upon whether or not Salmond is a sex pest.
Waiting for 17 May for cafes etc to open seems overly cautious to me but, as Boris says, "the eager pecker is pressing at the fly of constraint". (Or something like that.)
https://twitter.com/FTAlphaville/status/1366711027883204608
Blanket bans based on Irish surnames isn't a great policy.
On this, did anyone else watch the Max Clifford story last night. Another powerful individual brought down largely by becoming over-confident. And what his daughter was doing trying a posthumous appeal I cannot imagine.
Main concern at the moment is the boiler. There's a fault in that you can't have heating on without hot water. Getting someone in to fix that this week. Suspect its replace the boiler (which looks like it was installed an eon ago) as its drinking oil at an alarming rate of knots.
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest#by-ethnicity-and-area
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1366715724278992901?s=20
I thought he was careful to avoid that and instead is making very serious allegations about others.
More than one thing can be true. The women can be telling the truth, while Salmond's allegations about dodgy Crown Office behaviour can also be true.
The median occupancy of a PM is about 5-8 years, and it's not worth spending the money when you're only there Monday to Friday (when not travelling) and working all of the time.
If it needed a refurb, I'd ask the estate to just do the basics.
A valid question. So we have police complaints made by 9 people against AS which in this scenario were not strong enough to make a conviction likely. Pressure was brought, a trial convened, the women testified. It still comes back to 9 women having allegedly been persuaded to lie - had they not there there are police complaints and no prosecution witnesses.
The rest flow from this. As for pushing a judicial review longer and spending cash unnecessarily, how is this somehow the smoking gun that both brings down Sturgeon and persuades people to instead vote for other parties like the Tories or Labour before them? I am not justifying it for a minute, merely pointing out that few people give a toss and many of the people who do give a toss support a party who commit the same wastes of public money when they are in government.
I'm not expecting a good deal.
But c'mon, as a scandal it doesn't have SOFT FURNISHINGS.....
With my activist hat on, the only real opposition mud that has a chance of sticking at the moment is 'Tory cronyism'. This sort of thing plays into that. Which is a shame, because I don't think the 'cronyism' suggestions are enough on their own.
If the women were telling the truth then there was no conspiracy to convict Salmond for internecine purposes...