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.....
Getting the begging bowl out for the refurbishment No 10 is sadly far easier to understand than the complete destruction of the Scottish legal and Parliamentary system.
No rush I expect. Most of them have steady or declining case rates, and are sloooowly vaccinating the elderly with more supplies incoming, so why make yourself look bad by moving too quickly to change position? It's not like it is a matter of life and death...
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.
Then based on the practical experience of how the current scandal has tested the devolution settlement to its limits, it's time for the UK government to step in with legislation to amend the devolution settlement.
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’d imagine it’s a trust with charitable status rather than a charity per se.
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.
You don't have NutNut nipping your head about it and trying to be eBay Melania though.
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.
That is the problem with many enquiries of course. Even if they are not designed to find fault, that is what people want - that's why people throw such a fit at the chair or members with the barest of bare connections to something they don't like, because they worry that means X won't be found at fault, that is they have predetermined and want X to be found at fault. Even if the purpose, quite reasonably, is broader than such things.
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.
The earliest reference in Western literature to the punishment of crimes in the afterlife involves those who have broken their oaths, for which the Furies exact retribution upon them in the depths of the earth. Why? First, because human beings like to perjure the shit out of themselves. Second, because many of them get away with it completely during their lifetimes...
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
No rush I expect. Most of them have steady or declining case rates, and are sloooowly vaccinating the elderly with more supplies incoming, so why make yourself look bad by moving too quickly to change position? It's not like it is a matter of life and death...
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.
"Lies for children" a Terry Pratchett line I think, and one with a lot of truth in it, ironically.
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...
IANAL but surely he is alleging that proper procedures weren't followed etc hence why the judicial review was lost which has nothing to do with perjury?
If as you're claiming the women's evidence was all that mattered then Salmond would have lost the judicial review rather than winning it and getting 500k compensation. Since that was not based upon the testimony being lies.
Even if the women are telling the truth that does not give the Crown Office and others the right to break the law does it? Surely this is a critical rule of law principle?
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.
Yep. Almost all of what we teach kids in chemistry is a lie to children which I then get to unpick in the first year at University. My all time favourite is dots and crosses for electrons in bonds...
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.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I still find that particular rebuttal to be somewhat beside the point as to whether the Scottish government or SNP behaved inproperly or even conspiratorially.
They surely could have told the truth as they see it, albeit a jury did not convict as a result, and the Scottish government and SNP could have manipulated things and pushed ahead or put pressure on others to push ahead without just cause or reasonable grounds for conviction?
Not saying that is the case, it is the kind of serious allegation that requires a lot to back it up, but it doesn't seem as simple as either there is a conspiracy or 9 women lied.
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.
Yep. Almost all of what we teach kids in chemistry is a lie to children which I then get to unpick in the first year at University. My all time favourite is dots and crosses for electrons in bonds...
My youngest daughter was quite sad when I told her that atoms aren't mini solar systems.....
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
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.
Yep. Almost all of what we teach kids in chemistry is a lie to children which I then get to unpick in the first year at University. My all time favourite is dots and crosses for electrons in bonds...
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.
Yep. Almost all of what we teach kids in chemistry is a lie to children which I then get to unpick in the first year at University. My all time favourite is dots and crosses for electrons in bonds...
My youngest daughter was quite sad when I told her that atoms aren't mini solar systems.....
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.
Yep. Almost all of what we teach kids in chemistry is a lie to children which I then get to unpick in the first year at University. My all time favourite is dots and crosses for electrons in bonds...
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.
Yep. Almost all of what we teach kids in chemistry is a lie to children which I then get to unpick in the first year at University. My all time favourite is dots and crosses for electrons in bonds...
I knew fluorine was a made up element!
Due to a certain laxness on my parents part, my brother and I mail ordered a fun array of chemicals, back when...
These days our shopping list would have armed ninjas in gas masks popping by for tea.
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.
Yep. Almost all of what we teach kids in chemistry is a lie to children which I then get to unpick in the first year at University. My all time favourite is dots and crosses for electrons in bonds...
Is Chequers not a trust under the Chequers Estates Act 1917? Is this really that different?
It looks like the archetypal bubble story to me.
It is probably a bubble story. But even the bubble sometimes touches upon a valid point. Crappy practice elsewhere wouldn't make crappy practice here ok, and it is an entirely avoidable dispute.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
How big are 10 and 11 Downing Street?
I've always been obscurely proud that we put our most powerful politician in a fairly unassuming terraced house in Central London.
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.
"Lies for children" a Terry Pratchett line I think, and one with a lot of truth in it, ironically.
That's right, got it from the Science of Discworld books. Wiki tells me the scientific collaborators on that came up with it previously.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
How big are 10 and 11 Downing Street?
I've always been obscurely proud that we put our most powerful politician in a fairly unassuming terraced house in Central London.
They are not really terraced houses anymore.
IIRC just before WWII it was realised that the staggeringly shite Georgian jerrybuilding* would dissolve if a bomb went off anywhere near.
My understanding is that they have been rebuilt a number of times since then - it's a just a facade now.
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.
Yep. Almost all of what we teach kids in chemistry is a lie to children which I then get to unpick in the first year at University. My all time favourite is dots and crosses for electrons in bonds...
I knew fluorine was a made up element!
Due to a certain laxness on my parents part, my brother and I mail ordered a fun array of chemicals, back when...
These days our shopping list would have armed ninjas in gas masks popping by for tea.
Simpler times. That said we had a talk last week about doing practical classes at home, with easily available kit supplemented by stuff sent out by school/uni. The idea being to carry on practical classes in lockdown. Hopefully not going to be needed much longer, but though provoking and brings memories of chemistry sets as a child.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
How big are 10 and 11 Downing Street?
I've always been obscurely proud that we put our most powerful politician in a fairly unassuming terraced house in Central London.
The buildings are probably pretty big, but from the sounds of it the living area is not huge.
I quite like the unassuming nature of it as well - though with all the cats you'd think the rats would be less of an issue - but better they don't live there at all than solicit donations to top it up rather than regular state maintenance.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
How big are 10 and 11 Downing Street?
I've always been obscurely proud that we put our most powerful politician in a fairly unassuming terraced house in Central London.
ISTR that during his second administration Harold Wilson eschewed the flat above No. 10 and continued to live in his private house around the corner in Lord North Street. I shudder to imagine how much it would cost nowadays. Almost certainly more than Boris could afford.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
In which case they can put up and shut up about it being not as nice as they'd like. You get what you get and the government will pay for upkeep. It's public service after all, and they aren't living in squalor.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Sweden got one (1988) for their PM a few years after PM Olof Palme was murdered (1986) in the street ...
Due to a certain laxness on my parents part, my brother and I mail ordered a fun array of chemicals, back when...
These days our shopping list would have armed ninjas in gas masks popping by for tea.
In retrospect I'm horrified at the chemicals my brother and I had access to in my childhood in the sixties. It was completely routine to get concentrated hydrochloric and sulphuric acid, which you could buy from any chemist. Plus various explosive combinations - my brother's speciality was filling spent gun cartridges with sodium chlorate and sugar, and then carrying out controlled explosions of them in my sister's sandpit.
Is Chequers not a trust under the Chequers Estates Act 1917? Is this really that different?
It looks like the archetypal bubble story to me.
It is probably a bubble story. But even the bubble sometimes touches upon a valid point. Crappy practice elsewhere wouldn't make crappy practice here ok, and it is an entirely avoidable dispute.
Its a long running dispute that has happened time and again for decades, its not new.
A trust taking responsibility without the taxpayer needing to do so like the White House (and Chequers?) would kill this story in the future. Seems like a reasonable solution to me. In future years presumably the Trust would have its own funds like the US one (and Chequers one?) already does too.
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...
IANAL but surely he is alleging that proper procedures weren't followed etc hence why the judicial review was lost which has nothing to do with perjury?
If as you're claiming the women's evidence was all that mattered then Salmond would have lost the judicial review rather than winning it and getting 500k compensation. Since that was not based upon the testimony being lies.
Even if the women are telling the truth that does not give the Crown Office and others the right to break the law does it? Surely this is a critical rule of law principle?
Have I got it right that whilst the SG launched an investigation into the allegations, it didnt report as AS launched a judicial review which branded it unfair and illegal?
If so, then you have to ask how the SG bolloxed it up that badly. However, what they were investigating was allegations from 2 complainants, which then became 9 complainants as it all went public. At the heart of it are these allegations. AS claims the pursuit of him by the SG was part of a plot, which then extended into pressuring the police, all of which is built upon the allegations by the complainants.
The SG bolloxing up an investigation is far easier to believe than 9 women lying for internecine political reasons. I absolutely accept that the government screwed up its investigation. That however is not directly connected to the other 7 women who supposedly came forward to join the original 2 to perjure themselves to knobble Salmond to protect Sturgeon's position inside the SNP.
Its possible. I just don't believe it to be probable.
Due to a certain laxness on my parents part, my brother and I mail ordered a fun array of chemicals, back when...
These days our shopping list would have armed ninjas in gas masks popping by for tea.
In retrospect I'm horrified at the chemicals my brother and I had access to in my childhood in the sixties. It was completely routine to get concentrated hydrochloric and sulphuric acid, which you could buy from any chemist. Plus various explosive combinations - my brother's speciality was filling spent gun cartridges with sodium chlorate and sugar, and then carrying out controlled explosions of them in my sister's sandpit.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Sweden got one (1988) for their PM a few years after PM Olof Palme was murdered (1986) in the street ...
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
How big are 10 and 11 Downing Street?
I've always been obscurely proud that we put our most powerful politician in a fairly unassuming terraced house in Central London.
ISTR that during his second administration Harold Wilson eschewed the flat above No. 10 and continued to live in his private house around the corner in Lord North Street. I shudder to imagine how much it would cost nowadays. Almost certainly more than Boris could afford.
There's one for sale right now - £3.9m for something fairly dinky. And good luck securing it effectively:
Due to a certain laxness on my parents part, my brother and I mail ordered a fun array of chemicals, back when...
These days our shopping list would have armed ninjas in gas masks popping by for tea.
In retrospect I'm horrified at the chemicals my brother and I had access to in my childhood in the sixties. It was completely routine to get concentrated hydrochloric and sulphuric acid, which you could buy from any chemist. Plus various explosive combinations - my brother's speciality was filling spent gun cartridges with sodium chlorate and sugar, and then carrying out controlled explosions of them in my sister's sandpit.
Well into the 80s
On one occasion I looked at the list of the latest order and mentioned to my brother the interesting fact that if you mixed the contents of the order to together....
No, we weren't doing stupid stuff - just the coincidence of the contents. But can you imagine these days?
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.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I still find that particular rebuttal to be somewhat beside the point as to whether the Scottish government or SNP behaved inproperly or even conspiratorially.
They surely could have told the truth as they see it, albeit a jury did not convict as a result, and the Scottish government and SNP could have manipulated things and pushed ahead or put pressure on others to push ahead without just cause or reasonable grounds for conviction?
Not saying that is the case, it is the kind of serious allegation that requires a lot to back it up, but it doesn't seem as simple as either there is a conspiracy or 9 women lied.
As I have just responded to Philip I can well believe the SG bolloxed up its internal enquiry. These things happen. The question however is whether its bolloxing was as a result of its conspiracy or because it was shit. The allegation is conspiracy, which ties straight back into the women allegedly lying.
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.
You don't have NutNut nipping your head about it and trying to be eBay Melania though.
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...
IANAL but surely he is alleging that proper procedures weren't followed etc hence why the judicial review was lost which has nothing to do with perjury?
If as you're claiming the women's evidence was all that mattered then Salmond would have lost the judicial review rather than winning it and getting 500k compensation. Since that was not based upon the testimony being lies.
Even if the women are telling the truth that does not give the Crown Office and others the right to break the law does it? Surely this is a critical rule of law principle?
Have I got it right that whilst the SG launched an investigation into the allegations, it didnt report as AS launched a judicial review which branded it unfair and illegal?
If so, then you have to ask how the SG bolloxed it up that badly. However, what they were investigating was allegations from 2 complainants, which then became 9 complainants as it all went public. At the heart of it are these allegations. AS claims the pursuit of him by the SG was part of a plot, which then extended into pressuring the police, all of which is built upon the allegations by the complainants.
The SG bolloxing up an investigation is far easier to believe than 9 women lying for internecine political reasons. I absolutely accept that the government screwed up its investigation. That however is not directly connected to the other 7 women who supposedly came forward to join the original 2 to perjure themselves to knobble Salmond to protect Sturgeon's position inside the SNP.
Its possible. I just don't believe it to be probable.
I don't think perjury is alleged is it?
You seem to be tilting at windmills. Illegal actions are illegal even without perjury.
Is Chequers not a trust under the Chequers Estates Act 1917? Is this really that different?
It looks like the archetypal bubble story to me.
It is probably a bubble story. But even the bubble sometimes touches upon a valid point. Crappy practice elsewhere wouldn't make crappy practice here ok, and it is an entirely avoidable dispute.
Its a long running dispute that has happened time and again for decades, its not new.
A trust taking responsibility without the taxpayer needing to do so like the White House (and Chequers?) would kill this story in the future. Seems like a reasonable solution to me. In future years presumably the Trust would have its own funds like the US one (and Chequers one?) already does too.
Due to a certain laxness on my parents part, my brother and I mail ordered a fun array of chemicals, back when...
These days our shopping list would have armed ninjas in gas masks popping by for tea.
In retrospect I'm horrified at the chemicals my brother and I had access to in my childhood in the sixties. It was completely routine to get concentrated hydrochloric and sulphuric acid, which you could buy from any chemist. Plus various explosive combinations - my brother's speciality was filling spent gun cartridges with sodium chlorate and sugar, and then carrying out controlled explosions of them in my sister's sandpit.
You didn't buy them from me without a note from your Dad!
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.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I still find that particular rebuttal to be somewhat beside the point as to whether the Scottish government or SNP behaved inproperly or even conspiratorially.
They surely could have told the truth as they see it, albeit a jury did not convict as a result, and the Scottish government and SNP could have manipulated things and pushed ahead or put pressure on others to push ahead without just cause or reasonable grounds for conviction?
Not saying that is the case, it is the kind of serious allegation that requires a lot to back it up, but it doesn't seem as simple as either there is a conspiracy or 9 women lied.
As I have just responded to Philip I can well believe the SG bolloxed up its internal enquiry. These things happen. The question however is whether its bolloxing was as a result of its conspiracy or because it was shit. The allegation is conspiracy, which ties straight back into the women allegedly lying.
No it doesn't.
If its conspiracy it ties into those who are allegedly conspiring. The conspirators could be using the 9 women to further their own agenda, without the 9 being perjurers.
It's all bonkers and could go wrong for Boris. The office holding housing a PM has is plainly, if sadly, a matter for the taxpayer and anything they want like gold statues and diamond encrusted fixtures in private are a matter for them.
Charity in general has better things to do than maintain listed historic buildings that are properly tax payer funded; such as supporting the thousands of historic building that aren't, animal welfare, famine refief, the local duck pond and the food bank.
Give a tenner for Boris's wallpaper won't get the collecting tins rattling, and the Charity Commission should say no.
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.
Due to a certain laxness on my parents part, my brother and I mail ordered a fun array of chemicals, back when...
These days our shopping list would have armed ninjas in gas masks popping by for tea.
In retrospect I'm horrified at the chemicals my brother and I had access to in my childhood in the sixties. It was completely routine to get concentrated hydrochloric and sulphuric acid, which you could buy from any chemist. Plus various explosive combinations - my brother's speciality was filling spent gun cartridges with sodium chlorate and sugar, and then carrying out controlled explosions of them in my sister's sandpit.
You didn't buy them from me without a note from your Dad!
I have wondered at the thought process of the chap who sent us 100% concentrated acids, Benzene, Toluene and the rest....
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
Is Chequers not a trust under the Chequers Estates Act 1917? Is this really that different?
It looks like the archetypal bubble story to me.
Would that be the Chequers that was gifted by Sir Arthur Lee in 1917, before his elevation to the peerage by a grateful David Lloyd-George in 1918, to the Cabinet and Privy Council in 1919, and to the Viscountcy of Fareham in 1922? No, nothing dodgy in that at all!
The current position of Chequers is that it is administered by a trust. But that was settled at the time when the gift was made. Nowadays we are where we are - regardless of the dubious circumstances under which it came about, there is a large house for the use of the PM, and a pot of money which an independent trust administers for its upkeep. That isn't Mr Johnson's fault, or that of any living PM, and he's in nobody's debt for it.
That is wholly different from soliciting donations now from wealthy individuals which will personally benefit Mr Johnson and his family. It's clear why people would want to donate to that, and it's unwise to say the least for the PM to contemplate it.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
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.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I still find that particular rebuttal to be somewhat beside the point as to whether the Scottish government or SNP behaved inproperly or even conspiratorially.
They surely could have told the truth as they see it, albeit a jury did not convict as a result, and the Scottish government and SNP could have manipulated things and pushed ahead or put pressure on others to push ahead without just cause or reasonable grounds for conviction?
Not saying that is the case, it is the kind of serious allegation that requires a lot to back it up, but it doesn't seem as simple as either there is a conspiracy or 9 women lied.
As I have just responded to Philip I can well believe the SG bolloxed up its internal enquiry. These things happen. The question however is whether its bolloxing was as a result of its conspiracy or because it was shit. The allegation is conspiracy, which ties straight back into the women allegedly lying.
No it doesn't, that would depend on the nature and extent of conspiracy and who was involved, as conspiracies can be large or small. Still implausible perhaps, but them lying doesnt necessarily form part if it.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
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.
Your assumptions are bollox, go read the actual facts.
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.
"Lies for children" a Terry Pratchett line I think, and one with a lot of truth in it, ironically.
That's right, got it from the Science of Discworld books. Wiki tells me the scientific collaborators on that came up with it previously.
Teaching physics has always been anology driven. It has to be. There's no way you can include every possible nuance such as Einstein's Theories which is accepted now at University level when you are teaching Newtonian physics at Key Stage 3. Even now I find it hard to accept that the Force of Gravity is an illusion, especially after mocking Flat Earthers for years for saying exactly the same thing.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
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.
Your assumptions are bollox, go read the actual facts.
I see you're in your usual cheery mood.
Grateful if you'd correct the specific errors in my account, for the education of us all.
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.
I had a strong reaction (I'm 72) which lasted for a week at full strength and another week at lesser strength. But agreed, I'm the only oldie in my circle to have had a reaction 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.
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...
Lots of defence witnesses denied the claims of the complainants under oath and prosecution had not corroborating witnesses at all and jury found the defence witnesses versions to be the truth and found him not guilty on all counts
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
Why doesn't Scotland have a DPP outside of the Cabinet?
I do find it an odd concept that someone with so much power can answer directly to politicians and have responsibilities to the cabinet.
Issue is he is only answering to the governing party, he is threatening all other politicians with charges. Also the Lord Advocate remarkably refuses to tell Murdo Fraser whether failure to comply with a search warrant from a court is a criminal offence.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
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...
Lots of defence witnesses denied the claims of the complainants under oath and prosecution had not corroborating witnesses at all and jury found the defence witnesses versions to be the truth and found him not guilty on all counts
What might be instructive, is to read up the history of miscarriages of justice. Many times, people were sent down with what seemed like water tight cases.
The way that a structure of half-truths, lies, ignorance, ignoring the truth etc can accrete into an apparently solid case is fascinating.
What almost never happens is simple frame up. It seems, often, to be a series of "improvements" to a case that appeared solid at the start.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
No the PM is not the UK Head of Government, HM The Queen is the UK Head of Government, the PM is merely her chief minister.
The Queen is Macron's equivalent as Head of State here, that is why when French Presidents come here they go to state dinners and meetings at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle with the Queen not state dinners at No 10, even if the PM may also meet them and attend such dinners.
At the G7 Boris only shakes hands with Macron as the Queen's chief minister, not on his own terms, in the order of political hierarchy Boris is the equivalent of Castex the French PM.
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?
I mean this is a bit of the why does the PM fly by PJ/first class thing. Because he is the PM. Because it's No.10 - an iconic building, etc...
To put it in perspective I redid my study last year - a new built in bookcase a d chest of drawers, stone floor, some electrics. Cost £20k.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
No the PM is not the UK Head of Government, HM The Queen is the UK Head of Government, the PM is merely her chief minister.
The Queen is Macron's equivalent as Head of State here, that is why when French Presidents come here they go to state dinners and meetings at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle with the Queen not the PM, though the PM may also meet them and attend such dinners.
At the G7 Boris only shakes hands with Macron as the Queen's chief minister, not on his own terms, in the order of political hierarchy Boris is the equivalent of Castex the French PM.
Which is why as I said "if we were a republic", if we were a republic the Queen would not be there and our head could act in his own name not her name, like POTUS.
Why doesn't Scotland have a DPP outside of the Cabinet?
I do find it an odd concept that someone with so much power can answer directly to politicians and have responsibilities to the cabinet.
Issue is he is only answering to the governing party, he is threatening all other politicians with charges. Also the Lord Advocate remarkably refuses to tell Murdo Fraser whether failure to comply with a search warrant from a court is a criminal offence.
Completely agree, Malc. The equivalent role of our DPP shouldn't answer directly to the politicians, it's a real recipe for disaster as that person has the power to target individuals as is very clearly the case this time. It's actually quite frightening that essentially the FM has the ability to tell the Lord Advocate that he needs to bring down a political rival and to then disallow any evidence from an inquiry that's looking into these allegations. It's the kind of stuff we see from Putin against Navalny, unfathomable that a democratic country like Scotland has also got these issues of separation of power.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
How big are 10 and 11 Downing Street?
I've always been obscurely proud that we put our most powerful politician in a fairly unassuming terraced house in Central London.
They are actually enormous, but largely used as office space, so the private apartments are not huge (albeit amply proportioned for a couple with one child).
What I don't totally understand, if the feeling is that the private and entertainment space should be enlarged, is why tat simply isn't done at the expense of office space. It doesn't seem desperately important to have that much physical office space there as it is right by a huge area of Government buildings.
I suppose the reason, ultimately, is such a reorganisation would involve putting noses out of joint by moving individuals physically away from the PM and intensifying others' power by leaving them there. But it seems to be a problem that could readily be solved without moving the PM to a whole new home - square footage just isn't the issue.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature. Any other executive powers he has are only exercised by him on behalf of the Queen, not on his own terms.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
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.
"Lies for children" a Terry Pratchett line I think, and one with a lot of truth in it, ironically.
That's right, got it from the Science of Discworld books. Wiki tells me the scientific collaborators on that came up with it previously.
Teaching physics has always been anology driven. It has to be. There's no way you can include every possible nuance such as Einstein's Theories which is accepted now at University level when you are teaching Newtonian physics at Key Stage 3. Even now I find it hard to accept that the Force of Gravity is an illusion, especially after mocking Flat Earthers for years for saying exactly the same thing.
Until we have that Grand Unified Theory, it is all lies, or perhaps varying degrees of untruth.
If it is useful, carry on.
Nobody designing a bridge cares about gravitational tensors although they definitely do care about stress tensors.
The Government should not contemplate the possibility until the Football Association has been thoroughly restructured and become a coherent and competent organisation.
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.
Another way of asking the same question - how many fewer people will live in those homes? As long as there was a penalty on empty homes, the homes would still house about the same number of people, just under different economic arrangements.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Comments
I am not hopeful.
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&country=~EuropeanUnion®ion=World&casesMetric=true&interval=smoothed&perCapita=true&smoothing=7&pickerMetric=new_cases_per_million&pickerSort=desc
If as you're claiming the women's evidence was all that mattered then Salmond would have lost the judicial review rather than winning it and getting 500k compensation. Since that was not based upon the testimony being lies.
Even if the women are telling the truth that does not give the Crown Office and others the right to break the law does it? Surely this is a critical rule of law principle?
They surely could have told the truth as they see it, albeit a jury did not convict as a result, and the Scottish government and SNP could have manipulated things and pushed ahead or put pressure on others to push ahead without just cause or reasonable grounds for conviction?
Not saying that is the case, it is the kind of serious allegation that requires a lot to back it up, but it doesn't seem as simple as either there is a conspiracy or 9 women lied.
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
These days our shopping list would have armed ninjas in gas masks popping by for tea.
I've always been obscurely proud that we put our most powerful politician in a fairly unassuming terraced house in Central London.
IIRC just before WWII it was realised that the staggeringly shite Georgian jerrybuilding* would dissolve if a bomb went off anywhere near.
My understanding is that they have been rebuilt a number of times since then - it's a just a facade now.
*Ha
I quite like the unassuming nature of it as well - though with all the cats you'd think the rats would be less of an issue - but better they don't live there at all than solicit donations to top it up rather than regular state maintenance.
A trust taking responsibility without the taxpayer needing to do so like the White House (and Chequers?) would kill this story in the future. Seems like a reasonable solution to me. In future years presumably the Trust would have its own funds like the US one (and Chequers one?) already does too.
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1366726153457848323?s=20
That will feel like another month of winter. Under lockdown. Hmpft
If so, then you have to ask how the SG bolloxed it up that badly. However, what they were investigating was allegations from 2 complainants, which then became 9 complainants as it all went public. At the heart of it are these allegations. AS claims the pursuit of him by the SG was part of a plot, which then extended into pressuring the police, all of which is built upon the allegations by the complainants.
The SG bolloxing up an investigation is far easier to believe than 9 women lying for internecine political reasons. I absolutely accept that the government screwed up its investigation. That however is not directly connected to the other 7 women who supposedly came forward to join the original 2 to perjure themselves to knobble Salmond to protect Sturgeon's position inside the SNP.
Its possible. I just don't believe it to be probable.
https://search.savills.com/property-detail/gbwprswss200072
On one occasion I looked at the list of the latest order and mentioned to my brother the interesting fact that if you mixed the contents of the order to together....
No, we weren't doing stupid stuff - just the coincidence of the contents. But can you imagine these days?
You seem to be tilting at windmills. Illegal actions are illegal even without perjury.
http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/the-white-house/changes-white-house/
If its conspiracy it ties into those who are allegedly conspiring. The conspirators could be using the 9 women to further their own agenda, without the 9 being perjurers.
Charity in general has better things to do than maintain listed historic buildings that are properly tax payer funded; such as supporting the thousands of historic building that aren't, animal welfare, famine refief, the local duck pond and the food bank.
Give a tenner for Boris's wallpaper won't get the collecting tins rattling, and the Charity Commission should say no.
How many people would this policy make homeless?
https://www.portico.com/yields
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
The current position of Chequers is that it is administered by a trust. But that was settled at the time when the gift was made. Nowadays we are where we are - regardless of the dubious circumstances under which it came about, there is a large house for the use of the PM, and a pot of money which an independent trust administers for its upkeep. That isn't Mr Johnson's fault, or that of any living PM, and he's in nobody's debt for it.
That is wholly different from soliciting donations now from wealthy individuals which will personally benefit Mr Johnson and his family. It's clear why people would want to donate to that, and it's unwise to say the least for the PM to contemplate it.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hôtel_Matignon
Grateful if you'd correct the specific errors in my account, for the education of us all.
Good afternoon, everyone.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson.
Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen.
Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
Also the Lord Advocate remarkably refuses to tell Murdo Fraser whether failure to comply with a search warrant from a court is a criminal offence.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-results-public-health-england-b921793.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1614686926
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
The way that a structure of half-truths, lies, ignorance, ignoring the truth etc can accrete into an apparently solid case is fascinating.
What almost never happens is simple frame up. It seems, often, to be a series of "improvements" to a case that appeared solid at the start.
The Queen is Macron's equivalent as Head of State here, that is why when French Presidents come here they go to state dinners and meetings at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle with the Queen not state dinners at No 10, even if the PM may also meet them and attend such dinners.
At the G7 Boris only shakes hands with Macron as the Queen's chief minister, not on his own terms, in the order of political hierarchy Boris is the equivalent of Castex the French PM.
It’s nice but doesn’t look flashy.
£30k doesn’t go far in London prices
That could be the stumbling block.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56241637
What I don't totally understand, if the feeling is that the private and entertainment space should be enlarged, is why tat simply isn't done at the expense of office space. It doesn't seem desperately important to have that much physical office space there as it is right by a huge area of Government buildings.
I suppose the reason, ultimately, is such a reorganisation would involve putting noses out of joint by moving individuals physically away from the PM and intensifying others' power by leaving them there. But it seems to be a problem that could readily be solved without moving the PM to a whole new home - square footage just isn't the issue.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature. Any other executive powers he has are only exercised by him on behalf of the Queen, not on his own terms.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen.
If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
If it is useful, carry on.
Nobody designing a bridge cares about gravitational tensors although they definitely do care about stress tensors.
This is unlikely to happen in my lifetime.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1366654240832311298?s=20