politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Patel goes and so the attention will now focus on Boris

kle4 said:

It would be most out of character - however that is what EPG did, in my opinion (if he/she disagrees, I would be interested in the reasoning of how that interpretation is incorrect).

I addressed the claim that we should not cheer on the #metoo movement because some men suffered unfairly from the actions of third parties (i.e. other men and women, some of whom who have basically been tolerating this behaviour or using it to control their parties, the real Westminster scandal).

On the contrary, we should cheer on women who make good faith allegations to protect others and assert their right not to be harassed or worse.
We should not let misogynists use a man's suicide to force women back into the closet, so to speak.
If you want to blame someone, don't blame the women who brought up the allegations. That's an attempt to silence them, or perhaps more accurately, to make the problem go away in your mind. But the problem is there. What do you choose?

https://twitter.com/tomboadle/status/928393277937725441

From 2013 - Saudi Arabia: Five beheaded and ‘crucified’ amid ‘disturbing’ rise in executions

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/05/saudi-arabia-five-beheaded-and-crucified-amid-disturbing-rise-in-executions/

From 2009 - Saudi Arabian man beheaded and crucified

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2009/12/saudi-arabian-man-beheaded-and-crucified-20091208/

TOPPING said:

So who has a take on what on earth Priti was up to?

See the tweet from Henry Mance in the thread header.

Her ambition and self belief outweighed her talent.

YBarddCwsc said:

The email correspondence between Carl Sergeant, his solicitors and the Labour Party is on the BBC Wales website.

It seems to make clear that Carl was not told the specific allegations against him, nor who the complainants were, but he was told the general nature (inappropriate behaviour).

It can be perused here :

https://tinyurl.com/yc7v9mvn

I think even DrFoxinSox might agree that Carwyn has some awkward questions to answer.

It does say that the accusation is of inappropriate behaviour and gooping, by several different people.

The first step is to assess the risk of the behaviour continuing, and in particular with a Minister responsible for young people.

The next step is to formally interview the accusers and witnesses, then notify the accused of these statements and witnesses, with the instruction not to speak to them at this point over the matter.

Having compiled the statements then these would be disclosed to the accused within a set time (5th of Dec in the email). This is the standard 28 days for investigation. There is then a six week period before the formal hearing.

This seems pretty standard HR procedure, near identical to what we do in my hospital.

Mr Sargeant commited suicide within days, so between step 1 and 2.

The procedural investigation should centre on whether the risk assessment in step 1 was reasonably arrived at, and justified by the severity of the accusations.

foxinsoxuk said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The email correspondence between Carl Sergeant, his solicitors and the Labour Party is on the BBC Wales website.

It seems to make clear that Carl was not told the specific allegations against him, nor who the complainants were, but he was told the general nature (inappropriate behaviour).

It can be perused here :

https://tinyurl.com/yc7v9mvn

I think even DrFoxinSox might agree that Carwyn has some awkward questions to answer.

It does say that the accusation is of inappropriate behaviour and gooping, by several different people.

The first step is to assess the risk of the behaviour continuing, and in particular with a Minister responsible for young people.

The next step is to formally interview the accusers and witnesses, then notify the accused of these statements and witnesses, with the instruction not to speak to them at this point over the matter.

Having compiled the statements then these would be disclosed to the accused within a set time (5th of Dec in the email). This is the standard 28 days for investigation. There is then a six week period before the formal hearing.

This seems pretty standard HR procedure, near identical to what we do in my hospital.

Mr Sargeant commited suicide within days, so between step 1 and 2.

The procedural investigation should centre on whether the risk assessment in step 1 was reasonably arrived at, and justified by the severity of the accusations.

I give up - good night

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tulipsiddiq/status/928393308606554112

Even the most rabid PB Tory would agree that this disengenous liar has to go! What a c*nt!!

Ishmael_Z said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

So who has a take on what on earth Priti was up to?

See the tweet from Henry Mance in the thread header.

Her ambition and self belief outweighed her talent.

Yebbut what was the strategy in this particular case?

Undermine Boris? Or Tezza? Because... she thought she was untouchable? Or did she really want to help the Syrian refugees?

I mean I get the arrogance but what was the plan in this instance?

She is Hindi (Hindu?)

I have no idea what the ramifications of that fact are, but it makes more sense than anything else I can think of, of a pro Israel and implicitly anti Muslim stance.

Eh? Ignorance is bliss.

You do know that India and Israel aren't exactly best buddies?

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/928387991843819521

Well she certainly looks contrite!!

RobD said:

murali_s said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tulipsiddiq/status/928393308606554112

Even the most rabid PB Tory would agree that this disengenous liar has to go! What a c*nt!!

Charming, as ever.

Just telling the truth brother. You do agree I hope? The Tory party are a complete shambles.

Bring back Cameron and Osborne.

TheScreamingEagles said:

A few people think

1) Mrs May is crap

2) Mrs May will be gone soon because of her crapness

3) So there's a bit of indecent haste and jockeying to replace Mrs May.

Most of the people who think this are even more crap than Mrs May...

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarkHopkins said:

foxinsoxuk said:

steve_garner said:

foxinsoxuk said:

YBarddCwsc said:

foxinsoxuk said:

@Big_G

.

”.

Any accusation that causes a Minister to be sacked is obviously significant.

What about the open investigation you were on about a while back?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/08/carl-sargeant-welsh-labour-allegations-correspondence-family

Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.

Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.

All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.

Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-41908424

That contradicts what

You seem intent on defending Carwyn Jones rather than showing sympathy to Carl's family. And to say you are not a labour supporter when you daily espouse the wonderful world of Corbyn is comical

I thought Dr.Fox was a Liberal Democrat member. Certainly, a supporter.

I am indeed a LD member. I would have voted anyone but Cable if there had been a leadership contest though. As such I am a rather estranged one at present.

I am quite happy with a lot of Corbynite policies, particularly over generational inequality such as tuition fees, and quite relaxed about other things. I would like to see Trident scrapped too, and see NATO as obselete, and would like to see stronger rights for those in the gig economy and proper taxation of the super rich tax dodging individuals and companies.

These are policies popular with Lib Dems too. I am less happy with Corbyns economic plans such as overspending and nationalisation.

Agree on cable. Mistake.
Agree on generational inequality
Bad time to scrap trident, ideologically sound.
NATO has done a good job for 60 years. At some time it will be obsolete, don't know when it if that is now.
Can't object to good rights for those in work, employed or on contract..
Agree on taxation of super rich and international corps, and Dr's.
Corbyn isn't the way to achieve it.

Scott_P said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A few people think

1) Mrs May is crap

2) Mrs May will be gone soon because of her crapness

3) So there's a bit of indecent haste and jockeying to replace Mrs May.

Most of the people who think this are even more crap than Mrs May...

And seem intent on proving this to the nation.

It is difficult to be objective about Carl Sargeant 's awful death. We clearly have little idea about the facts of the matter, but even if Carwyn has followed the letter of the law 100%, he must be feeling totally in despair and at least in part responsible. It reminds me a bit of the David Kelly affair, ironically also a Welshman. Although not responsible, Blair was somehow diminished by his death.
I think Carwyn may also be diminished by what has happened, and I would not be at all surprised if he resigns. If that does happen i hope for all concerned the sooner the better.
Just finally to say sincere condolences to Carl Sargeant's family and friends.

rottenborough said:

Right, time for "The Detectorists" . One of the finest comedies in years.

BBC4.

Sod that, Celebrity First Dates is on 4seven. Mickey Fab is on it. He's probably too eccentric to have a relationship, but the carcrash is interesting. Sinitta is poised, Roman Kemp is cute, and Jan Leeming is absolutely lovely.

kle4 said:

OchEye said:

kle4 said:

Sandpit said:

JonnyJimmy said:

I may well be being a bit mad and part-channelling a Yes Prime Mininster plot.. But is there any way Rory Stewart could be sent to Iran, and be able to bring back the lady in prison? If he somehow could, and he may just have what it takes, he'd come back a hero and surely be a shoo in for next Tory leader/PM..

I’d send Boris to Iran - and tell him not to come back unless he brings the British prisoner back with him!

I presume his visa would expire and they'd evict him eventually! After all, why would they do that?

What is the penalty for adultery in Iran?

Stoning, I believe.

I wonder if anywhere still crucifies.

What is the penalty for teaching journalism?

David_Evershed said:

kle4 said:

OchEye said:

kle4 said:

Sandpit said:

JonnyJimmy said:

I may well be being a bit mad and part-channelling a Yes Prime Mininster plot.. But is there any way Rory Stewart could be sent to Iran, and be able to bring back the lady in prison? If he somehow could, and he may just have what it takes, he'd come back a hero and surely be a shoo in for next Tory leader/PM..

I’d send Boris to Iran - and tell him not to come back unless he brings the British prisoner back with him!

I presume his visa would expire and they'd evict him eventually! After all, why would they do that?

What is the penalty for adultery in Iran?

Stoning, I believe.

I wonder if anywhere still crucifies.

What is the penalty for teaching journalism?

Becoming a journalist.

[drops mike]

YBarddCwsc said:

foxinsoxuk said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The email correspondence between Carl Sergeant, his solicitors and the Labour Party is on the BBC Wales website.

It seems to make clear that Carl was not told the specific allegations against him, nor who the complainants were, but he was told the general nature (inappropriate behaviour).

It can be perused here :

https://tinyurl.com/yc7v9mvn

I think even DrFoxinSox might agree that Carwyn has some awkward questions to answer.

It does say that the accusation is of inappropriate behaviour and gooping, by several different people.

The first step is to assess the risk of the behaviour continuing, and in particular with a Minister responsible for young people.

The next step is to formally interview the accusers and witnesses, then notify the accused of these statements and witnesses, with the instruction not to speak to them at this point over the matter.

Having compiled the statements then these would be disclosed to the accused within a set time (5th of Dec in the email). This is the standard 28 days for investigation. There is then a six week period before the formal hearing.

This seems pretty standard HR procedure, near identical to what we do in my hospital.

Mr Sargeant commited suicide within days, so between step 1 and 2.

The procedural investigation should centre on whether the risk assessment in step 1 was reasonably arrived at, and justified by the severity of the accusations.

I think Carl was clearly upset that he did not know who had made the complaints, and that the First Minister was (as he saw it) prejudicing a fair trail by his TV interviews.

My own opinion is that, as Carl is no longer around, it is absolutely imperative that the content of the accusations are closely inspected, and that the names of the accusers are provided and made public.

Who is the real victim here?

There are people who may have been seen as victims in the context of current accusations, whose actions in other spheres of activity might attract closer scrutiny.

Is the victim Carl? Or his accusers? It is hard to know what to make of the murky business.

The only way to determine if the risk assessment to suspend Sargeant was correct is to look further into the concerns raised by the accusers, so that investigation should continue.

The investigation should be confidential, but the conclusions should be published.

For the Assembly Leader to sack a long time Minister and colleague would take fairly serious accusations.

valleyboy said:

It is difficult to be objective about Carl Sargeant 's awful death. We clearly have little idea about the facts of the matter, but even if Carwyn has followed the letter of the law 100%, he must be feeling totally in despair and at least in part responsible. It reminds me a bit of the David Kelly affair, ironically also a Welshman. Although not responsible, Blair was somehow diminished by his death.
I think Carwyn may also be diminished by what has happened, and I would not be at all surprised if he resigns. If that does happen i hope for all concerned the sooner the better.
Just finally to say sincere condolences to Carl Sargeant's family and friends.

Suicide has effects way beyond the individual, it is very destructive of other lives too.

Middle aged and older men are at higher risk. Loss of status is a major driver, and they tend to use fairly certain means.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-suicide-of-stephen-farley-67271.html

I knew Dr Farley and wrote a supportive letter when he was under investigation. He did have a high referral rate, but he was destroyed by the investigation. I still wonder if I should have been louder in his defence.

foxinsoxuk said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The email correspondence between Carl Sergeant, his solicitors and the Labour Party is on the BBC Wales website.

It seems to make clear that Carl was not told the specific allegations against him, nor who the complainants were, but he was told the general nature (inappropriate behaviour).

It can be perused here :

https://tinyurl.com/yc7v9mvn

I think even DrFoxinSox might agree that Carwyn has some awkward questions to answer.

It does say that the accusation is of inappropriate behaviour and gooping, by several different people.

The first step is to assess the risk of the behaviour continuing, and in particular with a Minister responsible for young people.

The next step is to formally interview the accusers and witnesses, then notify the accused of these statements and witnesses, with the instruction not to speak to them at this point over the matter.

Having compiled the statements then these would be disclosed to the accused within a set time (5th of Dec in the email). This is the standard 28 days for investigation. There is then a six week period before the formal hearing.

This seems pretty standard HR procedure, near identical to what we do in my hospital.

Mr Sargeant commited suicide within days, so between step 1 and 2.

The procedural investigation should centre on whether the risk assessment in step 1 was reasonably arrived at, and justified by the severity of the accusations.

It is exactly the same procedure in social services. An allegation is made, the alleged perpetrator is informed an allegation has been made, suspended and an investigation initiated. The accused will only be informed of the details of the allegation when the investigation is completed or a pre-set date has been reached.

It makes sense in order to deter the accused from intimidating accuser or witness, or fabricating a false defence during the investigation process.

Let us use Jimmy Saville as an example (because he can't sue!) He may be told that a serious accusation of sexual misconduct has been made against him. Saville now has to strategize how to discredit his accuser. His dilemma however is this, who is making the accusation? Is it the girl in Scarborough, the young lady in hospital at Stoke Mandeville, or the boy scout on Jim'll Fix it? If Saville were to be told you have been accused by the girl in Scarborough he could concoct an alibi with his chauffer, or he could offer to pay her off, or adopt any manner of other elaborate schemes. As it stands, he doesn't know who to pay off or discredit, so the investigation can continue unimpeded.

Anyway Neil Hamilton, no less, is demanding Carwyn's head!

On a totally different issue the Yorkshire Post today was having a real go at the government re transport policy.

And one piece of advice to government ministers / London based Tories - don't use HS2 as evidence that the government is investing in transport infrastructure in the North.

and, now, for this weekend's Cabinet crisis story:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/928398759901483008

rottenborough said:

1st world problem of the night:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/928387840291065856

The comments below are, shall we say, varied.

Is Peston diabetic ?

If so that could be quite serious for him.

Ok, to answer my own question - seems like some weird protocol thing:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/928343678925639682

YBarddCwsc said:

Mexicanpete said:

It is exactly the same procedure in social services. An allegation is made, the alleged perpetrator is informed an allegation has been made, suspended and an investigation initiated. The accused will only be informed of the details of the allegation when the investigation is completed or a pre-set date has been reached.

It makes sense in order to deter the accused from intimidating accuser or witness, or fabricating a false defence during the investigation process.

Let us use Jimmy Saville as an example (because he can't sue!) He may be told that a serious accusation of sexual misconduct has been made against him. Saville now has to strategize how to discredit his accuser. His dilemma however is this, who is making the accusation? Is it the girl in Scarborough, the young lady in hospital at Stoke Mandeville, or the boy scout on Jim'll Fix it? If Saville were to be told you have been accused by the girl in Scarborough he could concoct an alibi with his chauffer, or he could offer to pay her off, or adopt any manner of other elaborate schemes. As it stands, he doesn't know who to pay off or discredit, so the investigation can continue unimpeded.

Anyway Neil Hamilton, no less, is demanding Carwyn's head!

There is no reason now not to give the names of the accusers and the detail of the accusations.

There is no danger now (if there ever was) of Carl intimidating a witness.

You are justifiably concerned at the ultimate tragedy, but this as Dr Foxinsox has highlighted is standard HR procedure. Should he have been counselled? Probably with the benefit of hindsight. The investigation procedure however remains robust.

overreach?

"Democratic leaders gleefully predicted that the Senate, where the Republicans hold a two-seat majority, might now be in play."

https://www.nytimes.com/?action=click&contentCollection=Asia Pacific&region=TopBar&module=HomePage-Button&pgtype=article&WT.z_jog=1&hF=t&vS=undefined

Y0kel said:

Trumpton

Back on the 5th November I asked who recently charged and pleading guilty Trump team member George Papadopolous met up with in London.

Earlier today the government said he'd met with some FCO officials. But Georgie had met with other people in London, way more interesting than some mandarins.

Hint? Rhymes with “garage”? Or “Doris”?

rottenborough said:

Dura_Ace said:

TOPPING said:

So who has a take on what on earth Priti was up to?

Maybe she was/is MI6.

Well, it's certainly a bloody circus.

More Hayton than Smiley?

As ever Ms Rowling nails it:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/928346292903927808?s=17

OchEye said:

rottenborough said:

Dura_Ace said:

TOPPING said:

So who has a take on what on earth Priti was up to?

Maybe she was/is MI6.

Well, it's certainly a bloody circus.

More Hayton than Smiley?

Haydon?

Also in London are two more major players in the Trump/Russia narrative: Julian Assange and Nigel Farage.

https://medium.com/@ScottMStedman/exclusive-papadopoulos-had-working-level-meeting-with-u-k-foreign-office-in-september-2016-367ef543df18

CarlottaVance said:

Indie run down on potential Patel replacements:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-resigns-quits-who-will-replace-her-theresa-may-cabinet-secretary-a8044976.html?amp

I think we need to go beyond Remain and Leave, and onto "who will do the best job". Also, I honestly believe that 90% of the parliamentary Conservative Party simply wants to make the best of Brexit, irrespective of their views from before the referendum.

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Indie run down on potential Patel replacements:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-resigns-quits-who-will-replace-her-theresa-may-cabinet-secretary-a8044976.html?amp

I think we need to go beyond Remain and Leave, and onto "who will do the best job". Also, I honestly believe that 90% of the parliamentary Conservative Party simply wants to make the best of Brexit, irrespective of their views from before the referendum.

Agree - though some of the Leadbangers on the back benches may not.....

Interesting paper:

This leaves two plausible hypotheses for why the UK voted to leave.

Hypothesis 1: Primacy of the Nation State. Successful democratic government requires the consent and participation of the governed. British people identify as citizens of the UK not the EU. Consequently, they feel the UK should be governed as a sovereign nation-state. According to this hypothesis, the UK voted to leave because Brexit supporters wanted to take back control of their borders and their country.

Hypothesis 2: Scapegoating of the EU. Many people feel left behind by modern Britain. Influenced by the anti-EU sentiments expressed by Britain’s newspapers and eurosceptic politicians, these individuals have come to blame immigration and the EU for many of their woes. According to this hypothesis, voters supported Brexit because they believe EU membership has contributed to their discontent with the status quo.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/07/understanding-the-motivations-of-leave-voters-will-play-an-important-role-in-determining-the-future-of-globalisation/

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting paper:

This leaves two plausible hypotheses for why the UK voted to leave.

Hypothesis 1: Primacy of the Nation State. Successful democratic government requires the consent and participation of the governed. British people identify as citizens of the UK not the EU. Consequently, they feel the UK should be governed as a sovereign nation-state. According to this hypothesis, the UK voted to leave because Brexit supporters wanted to take back control of their borders and their country.

Hypothesis 2: Scapegoating of the EU. Many people feel left behind by modern Britain. Influenced by the anti-EU sentiments expressed by Britain’s newspapers and eurosceptic politicians, these individuals have come to blame immigration and the EU for many of their woes. According to this hypothesis, voters supported Brexit because they believe EU membership has contributed to their discontent with the status quo.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/07/understanding-the-motivations-of-leave-voters-will-play-an-important-role-in-determining-the-future-of-globalisation/

Isn't the reality that both are true: there was (and is) a democratic deficit in the EU; and Brexit was a vote against the status quo by those left behind by globalisation and technological change.

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting paper:

This leaves two plausible hypotheses for why the UK voted to leave.

Hypothesis 1: Primacy of the Nation State. Successful democratic government requires the consent and participation of the governed. British people identify as citizens of the UK not the EU. Consequently, they feel the UK should be governed as a sovereign nation-state. According to this hypothesis, the UK voted to leave because Brexit supporters wanted to take back control of their borders and their country.

Hypothesis 2: Scapegoating of the EU. Many people feel left behind by modern Britain. Influenced by the anti-EU sentiments expressed by Britain’s newspapers and eurosceptic politicians, these individuals have come to blame immigration and the EU for many of their woes. According to this hypothesis, voters supported Brexit because they believe EU membership has contributed to their discontent with the status quo.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/07/understanding-the-motivations-of-leave-voters-will-play-an-important-role-in-determining-the-future-of-globalisation/

Isn't the reality that both are true: there was (and is) a democratic deficit in the EU; and Brexit was a vote against the status quo by those left behind by globalisation and technological change.

As the author goes on to write:

It is likely that both hypotheses played some role in the referendum outcome, but the existing evidence is insufficient to assess their relative contributions. When leave voters are asked to explain their vote, national sovereignty and immigration are the most frequently cited reasons, but these responses are consistent with either hypothesis. They could reflect voters’ attachment to the UK as a nation state, or they may mirror the language used by pro-Brexit newspapers and politicians. However, the hypotheses have quite different implications for how policymakers should respond to Brexit and for the future of European and global integration.

CarlottaVance said:

When leave voters are asked to explain their vote, national sovereignty and immigration are the most frequently cited reasons

Well, kind of...

https://twitter.com/chrisjones_1/status/784464389739057152

CarlottaVance said:

swing_voter said:

CarlottaVance said:

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Indie run down on potential Patel replacements:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-resigns-quits-who-will-replace-her-theresa-may-cabinet-secretary-a8044976.html?amp

I think we need to go beyond Remain and Leave, and onto "who will do the best job". Also, I honestly believe that 90% of the parliamentary Conservative Party simply wants to make the best of Brexit, irrespective of their views from before the referendum.

Agree - though some of the Leadbangers on the back benches may not.....

Grant Shapps will be seen as the knight in shining armour...

Not something you read every day.....

Surely his alto ego, Micheal Green?