This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.
I’m confused that c
Yes, the rate can exceed 100%, but generally it is just short of 100%.
in this position would have to.
Instead they are kicking up a fuss and asking for special treatment because... because... umm... they are special?
While I don't disagree with the point you are making Charles the immediate problem needs resolving. It is not the fault of Doctors that civil servants/ministers have screwed up the tax system and public sector pension and pay such that there is no incentive to work by effectively paying nothing for the extra work done.
The issue is that their pension scheme is way more generous than the private sector and it throws everything out of balance
That’s the fix that needs to be done...
Agree
Though that is likely to worsen the exodus!
One little wrinkle to this whole issue is that the Employers contribution rate to NHS superannuation has increased to 20% this year. As 70% of NHS costs are staff related, this means a bigger financial squeeze on Trusts. Several Trusts are now looking at giving a payrise to those who opt out of NHS pensions in lieu of this.
That was what we introduced during my time in public sector pay. Give senior people a cash alternative if they aren't members of the pension scheme, leaving it up to them whether to invest it in wine and women or waste it on a private pension. Easy to come up with something attractive that simplifies people's tax affairs while making a profit for the company.
...until now Canberra always decided that the price was too high, the risks were low and Washington had its back.
But Trump’s capricious temperament means half a century of policy could change with a single tweet.
Meanwhile, the threat outlook has changed...
It took the fall of Singapore for Australia to realise that Britain couldn't and wouldn't defend them. A similar event would be needed for them to discard their defensive alliance with the US.
Also, while NATO is becoming irrelevant and, more importantly, unpopular in the US the alliance with Australia is growing in strategic importance.
This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.
I’m confused that c
too.
The upper tax rate is 40 or 45pc (I forget which; I'll never reach it) - enough of the nonsense.
It’s to do with the fact that they have a great pension scheme (paid for by you) with a very attractive multiplier.
Essentially the increase in the implied value of their final salary pension exceeds the £10,000 allowance that normal high earners get. Consequently they are asked to pay the penal tax rates for over contribution that any ordinary individual in this position would have to.
Instead they are kicking up a fuss and asking for special treatment because... because... umm... they are special?
While I don't disagree with the point you are making Charles the immediate problem needs resolving. It is not the fault of Doctors that civil servants/ministers have screwed up the tax system and public sector pension and pay such that there is no incentive to work by effectively paying nothing for the extra work done.
The issue is that their pension scheme is way more generous than the private sector and it throws everything out of balance
That’s the fix that needs to be done...
Agree
Though that is likely to worsen the exodus!
One little wrinkle to this whole issue is that the Employers contribution rate to NHS superannuation has increased to 20% this year. As 70% of NHS costs are staff related, this means a bigger financial squeeze on Trusts. Several Trusts are now looking at giving a payrise to those who opt out of NHS pensions in lieu of this.
The public sector is completely out of sync now with the private sector re pensions causing real problems. My wife is a Dr, but no longer in the NHS, so I am somewhat out of touch. Can I check - I assume the contribution by the employer is notional and there is not a fund or do I have that wrong. If correct the contribution is an accounting transaction, but which obviously impacts budgets. By comparison my wife's employer contribution is 8% in a DC scheme rather than a DB scheme.
Another issue re the exodus I have been told for GPs is the insurance and the annual verification you are up to date. Can't remember what that is called now. It must deter GPs going part time so they just stop altogether. However in my wife's case her employer pays that so she was able to continue on a 3 day week rather than retiring.
The Darroch email thing is fascinating. It can only be seen as an act of sabotage.
A FO minister perhaps?
I note that so far everyone's directed their fire at the leaker, not the publisher. Treason by the MoS? My reaction may be a bit over the top, but leaking an Ambassadors private messages and assessment could be seen as giving comfort and aid to the Queen's enemies, surely.
That is absolutely priceless. Glad to see that Tory members are exactly like I imagine them. Self-righteous, unaware, confused, and above all old as fuck.
That is absolutely priceless. Glad to see that Tory members are exactly like I imagine them. Self-righteous, unaware, confused, and above all old as fuck.
The Conservative party will discover that prostrating the UK at the feet of Donald Trump will not be electorally popular. It will certainly increase anti-Tory tactical voting.
Ashcroft's poll yesterday had Cameron, Blair, Corbyn, Sturgeon and Swinson all less popular with Leave voters than Donald Trump on a net basis, even if Trump got the highest net negative rating with Remain voters
I don't think anyone doubts that there are a fair proportion of people in the UK who would embrace an agenda set by a paranoid, predatory, white supremacist; but they are, overall, a minority. If the Tories really want to become the party of No Deal and Trump, then that may well secure them some short-term electoral success as the realignment needed to defeat them will take a little more time to play through. In the medium to long term, though, it will be electoral poison. And for what?
But, but but we (well I was a child during WWII) are the people who, as parents and grandparents were the role models for the youth of today. And 'lucky to have a pair of shoes' is a load of old cobblers.Shoes, like other clothes were, IIRC rationed and price controlled. Not glamorous perhaps but available.
That is absolutely priceless. Glad to see that Tory members are exactly like I imagine them. Self-righteous, unaware, confused, and above all old as fuck.
"On the Betfair exchange Biden is currently rated as a 13% chance for the nomination – down from 31% before last month’s TV debates. Kamala Harris is at 33% with Elizabeth Warren at 19%."
What is justifying Harris' price ?
It's because the smart money is on her - mine.
My main gripe is with the absolubtely breathless implied surge (From the tweet) of Harris, Warren reporting of polls such as a Biden 29, Sanders 23, Harris 11, Warren 11 as the following :
I was talking last night to a friend who joined the Tory party two months ago. He is surprised to have received a Ballot Paper for the leadership election in view of the short period of his membership.He has also had telephone calls re-the campaign.
That is absolutely priceless. Glad to see that Tory members are exactly like I imagine them. Self-righteous, unaware, confused, and above all old as fuck.
Unlike leaders of the Labour Party.
If I had any time for Corbyn that would hurt.
I am an equal opportunities hurt dispenser. Those with time for Corbyn N.B.
I was talking last night to a friend who joined the Tory party two months ago. He is surprised to have received a Ballot Paper for the leadership election in view of the short period of his membership.He has also had telephone calls re-the campaign.
Got a feeling the rule is 3 months from closing date of poll (which is 22nd July). So might have slipped in.
"On the Betfair exchange Biden is currently rated as a 13% chance for the nomination – down from 31% before last month’s TV debates. Kamala Harris is at 33% with Elizabeth Warren at 19%."
What is justifying Harris' price ?
It's because the smart money is on her - mine.
My main gripe is with the absolubtely breathless implied surge (From the tweet) of Harris, Warren reporting of polls such as a Biden 29, Sanders 23, Harris 11, Warren 11 as the following :
Given the date of the poll - conducted June 28-July 1 - and Harris's debate having taken place only a day before, it was a significant bump. Other polls have her scoring rather more. Whether it justifies her being favourite is quite another matter.
That is absolutely priceless. Glad to see that Tory members are exactly like I imagine them. Self-righteous, unaware, confused, and above all old as fuck.
Stussy and £100 trainers as the symbols of lucky affluence? Not setting the bar very high.
The corollary to the 'everything to do with the EU' guff is that the slightly low rent boiler repair man should look to the EU as being his benefactor (which I'm pretty sure he won't).
...until now Canberra always decided that the price was too high, the risks were low and Washington had its back.
But Trump’s capricious temperament means half a century of policy could change with a single tweet.
Meanwhile, the threat outlook has changed...
It took the fall of Singapore for Australia to realise that Britain couldn't and wouldn't defend them. A similar event would be needed for them to discard their defensive alliance with the US....
The re-election of Trump ? I don't think it a question of discarding the alliance so much as insuring against US indifference. All theoretical for now, but that it is being considered is interesting.
I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.
Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.
Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
What about Blair?
Haha - touche - he get's blamed for Iraq shenanigans but if the Union does break up it will be almost entirely his fault.
His role in the history of the dissolution of the Union is significant, but the responsibility is hardly “almost entirely” his fault.
The disassembly if the Union got going during the late Victorian era, and thus spans well over a century now. It is an extremely common historiographical error to ascribe over-significance to recent phenomena. Many, many PMs have contributed to the downfall of the Union.
Blair’s key contribution was arrogance: he didn’t need to listen to Donald Dewar so he chose not to. It was Blair’s tinkering about with Dewar’s/Cook’s/Brown’s/Steel’s/Campbell’s/Wright’s/et al’s blueprint that crippled devolution from day one. He knew nothing, and cared nothing, for their Claim of Right and the long years of hard work in the Constitutional Convention.
Blair threw out the one plan that, at this late stage, might just have saved the Union.
Ta Tony!
Asymmetrical devolution is what that lot were asking for (I think, I was only young and have only read one book on the matter) and Blair gave it to them.
The Union ain't dead yet though!
No, just on its death bed.
Bit like Mark Twain then.......
It may seem unfair that having voted in a majority against Brexit, Scotland should be outvoted by the rest of the UK and then find that vote had increased the cost of it becoming independent. That, however, is the position in which Scotland finds itself and no amount of obfuscation or complaint from the Scottish government will change it.
"On the Betfair exchange Biden is currently rated as a 13% chance for the nomination – down from 31% before last month’s TV debates. Kamala Harris is at 33% with Elizabeth Warren at 19%."
What is justifying Harris' price ?
It's because the smart money is on her - mine.
My main gripe is with the absolubtely breathless implied surge (From the tweet) of Harris, Warren reporting of polls such as a Biden 29, Sanders 23, Harris 11, Warren 11 as the following :
Given the date of the poll - conducted June 28-July 1 - and Harris's debate having taken place only a day before, it was a significant bump. Other polls have her scoring rather more. Whether it justifies her being favourite is quite another matter.
Sure, but at that point in time 23% for Sanders was unusally high for his polling - tangentially I can't see it listed here ?!
It's almost as if the writers decide their story, THEN look at the polls and fit it around the polls rather than looking at the polls and writing the story off the back of that - which when it's a story about a poll surely should be the way round to do it ?
Side note, @Realclearpolitics looks wrong, and with the excellent Huffpo not covering the race either - hmm...
My main gripe is with the absolubtely breathless implied surge (From the tweet) of Harris, Warren reporting of polls such as a Biden 29, Sanders 23, Harris 11, Warren 11 as the following :
Given the date of the poll - conducted June 28-July 1 - and Harris's debate having taken place only a day before, it was a significant bump. Other polls have her scoring rather more. Whether it justifies her being favourite is quite another matter.
Sure, but at that point in time 23% for Sanders was unusally high for his polling - tangentially I can't see it listed here ?!
It's almost as if the writers decide their story, THEN look at the polls and fit it around the polls rather than looking at the polls and writing the story off the back of that - which when it's a story about a poll surely should be the way round to do it ?
Side note, @Realclearpolitics looks wrong, and with the excellent Huffpo not covering the race either - hmm...
But the race is very much about getting favourable media coverage - or any media coverage - in order to stand out from the herd. Self-fulfilling prophecy and all that... Of course she could fall flat on her face during the next debate.
My main gripe is with the absolubtely breathless implied surge (From the tweet) of Harris, Warren reporting of polls such as a Biden 29, Sanders 23, Harris 11, Warren 11 as the following :
Given the date of the poll - conducted June 28-July 1 - and Harris's debate having taken place only a day before, it was a significant bump. Other polls have her scoring rather more. Whether it justifies her being favourite is quite another matter.
Sure, but at that point in time 23% for Sanders was unusally high for his polling - tangentially I can't see it listed here ?!
It's almost as if the writers decide their story, THEN look at the polls and fit it around the polls rather than looking at the polls and writing the story off the back of that - which when it's a story about a poll surely should be the way round to do it ?
Side note, @Realclearpolitics looks wrong, and with the excellent Huffpo not covering the race either - hmm...
But the race is very much about getting favourable media coverage - or any media coverage - in order to stand out from the herd. Self-fulfilling prophecy and all that... Of course she could fall flat on her face during the next debate.
I do agree that 3 on betfair for Kamala to get the nom is not justified by the evidence. I think we are seeing the old pendulum overswing. She had drifted too much and has now steamed in too much. Perhaps you should lay more and get your average price down.
And I missed out the king of false sayings from my previous post. "Everything happens for a reason." That’s my all time most unfavourite thing to hear. If somebody says that in my presence I go absolutely ballistic. Even if it's a nice person with woke political views such Laura Pidcock.
I do agree that 3 on betfair for Kamala to get the nom is not justified by the evidence. I think we are seeing the old pendulum overswing. She had drifted too much and has now steamed in too much. Perhaps you should lay more and get your average price down.
And I missed out the king of false sayings from my previous post. "Everything happens for a reason." That’s my all time most unfavourite thing to hear. If somebody says that in my presence I go absolutely ballistic. Even if it's a nice person with woke political views such Laura Pidcock.
I've done that a touch, my lay average for her is 4.28 right now. Knowing my luck the media hype train will continue and she'll go odds on though.
The Woke media are going to end up giving Trump a second term if they're not careful :E Up next, Betsy Ross in the next Dem debate...
The Hill is hardly 'woke media', being about as Republican leaning as you can be without being Fox news, but I take your point... the same process gave us Trump.
In any event, the field will winnow itself out over the next few months. Come September/October it will be at most four or five frontrunners, plus maybe a couple of stubborn no hopers.
For now it's about survival and funding; then it gets real.
My main gripe is with the absolubtely breathless implied surge (From the tweet) of Harris, Warren reporting of polls such as a Biden 29, Sanders 23, Harris 11, Warren 11 as the following :
That's an impressive headline given the opening line:
SCOTLAND YARD may be called in to investigate the "unpatriotic" leak of diplomatic cableswritten by the British ambassadord to Wathington, in which he was scathing about Donald Trump's administration.
Let’s hope the source isn’t relying on isabel Oakeshotte keeping her mouth shut.
The culture of leaking seems to be absolubtely embedded into all levels of Gov't. I for one would certainly like our ambassadors to be able to exchange views freely without fear of comeback.
I was talking last night to a friend who joined the Tory party two months ago. He is surprised to have received a Ballot Paper for the leadership election in view of the short period of his membership.He has also had telephone calls re-the campaign.
I hope you told your friend that they are "An Entryist Gammon"
That's an impressive headline given the opening line:
SCOTLAND YARD may be called in to investigate the "unpatriotic" leak of diplomatic cableswritten by the British ambassadord to Wathington, in which he was scathing about Donald Trump's administration.
Perhaps it's a Silly Season thing, but I find the hullabaloo being generated by this story surprising. It's almost as if those with good connections know perfectly well who was responsible and are determined to expose it to the sunlight.
I was talking last night to a friend who joined the Tory party two months ago. He is surprised to have received a Ballot Paper for the leadership election in view of the short period of his membership.He has also had telephone calls re-the campaign.
I hope you told your friend that they are "An Entryist Gammon"
Entryism is one of those irregular verbs isn't it ?
You're probably right that Scottish Independence might save Labour from dodo territory, but don't mix up cause and effect. Labour switching to back independence may allow them to fish from the same pool of voters the SNP and Greence currently monopolise but it won't bring Labour voters over to back independence . . . since there are no Labor voters worth mentioning to bring over. That's the issue.
Do you really think the reason the SNP and Greens and others backing Indy failed last time was becase they lacked the genius that is SLAB?
Better Together succeeded in part because they had SLab foot soldiers knocking on pensioners' doors with bad tidings. I believe even David L. of this parish donned a Labour badge for some 'campaigning'. I'm as sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow that no supporter of the Labour party put on a SCon badge to do his bit for the Union.
That's back in 2014, five years ago, when SLAB had electoral foot soldiers.
Its worth bearing in mind that in 2014 SLAB had the vast majority of Scottish MPs, nearly as many Local Councillors as the SNP and also in 2014 SLAB won as many MEPs as the SNP.
Fast forward to now and the situation has changed. Did SLAB win as many MEPs as the SNP this time? No, they came fifth and won 0!
The idea that this is Boris-initiated seems rather unlikely to me.
It would have to be a politician/SpAd with clearance to see the ambassadors memos now, because it includes new ones just sent. Somehow I doubt backbencher Boris let alone MEP Farage has that clearance right now.
Mr. Borough, Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore is a fascinating book, largely made possibly by the handwritten notes, diary entries, memos, and letters.
Future historians are going to find there's an endless splurge of commentary but personal correspondence between people may very well be lost as it's mostly electronic now (diaries still exist, of course, but they're also going to be quite subjective).
Anyway, I must be off. Been having exciting electricity problems again so that's more cause for joy.
The idea that this is Boris-initiated seems rather unlikely to me.
It would have to be a politician/SpAd with clearance to see the ambassadors memos now, because it includes new ones just sent. Somehow I doubt backbencher Boris let alone MEP Farage has that clearance right now.
Yes, that does seem silly. But the idea that Farage might be informed in some manner not quite so farfetched. Perhaps he was just bullshitting as usual, but he seemed awfully certain of the motivations for the leak, while on the radio this morning.
Biden now at 7.8. I don't expect him to win but surely that's too far out.
That's nuts, unless he plans to drop out and it's leaking.
It's nuts. I've gone in and topped up some more on Joe.
It's rather long odds for someone leading in the polls, but not necessarily nuts. Odds can stay out of kilter for some time, and there are only three weeks to go until the next debate. If Biden has a shocker again...
I'd be more comfortable shorting Harris at this point.
Biden now at 7.8. I don't expect him to win but surely that's too far out.
But if no one expects him to win, what is going to shorten his odds .... ?
I agree, it's not a trading bet. You'll lose your money unless he actually wins (or at least starts scoring up enough delegates where it looks possible for him to win). I don't think that's the most likely outcome but I think it's better than 7.8.
Also I suppose possible he goes into the next round of debates with super-low expectations and slightly overperforms them, gets some positive headlines, then moves up to 5 or something.
Civil service emails being automatically deleted after three months doesn't ring true to me.
Automatically archived out of the inbox more likely.
From the guidance it took me about five minutes to find; http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/guidance-principles-on-the-deletion-of-email.pdf To delete or not to delete? Emails of historical value and enduring public interest should be kept However, email volumes can become unmanageable, leading to real problems. For example: o there is a risk of a breach of the Data Protection Act if emails contain personal or sensitive information o information retained long term in mailboxes may pose more of a security risk o they can be difficult to search and find information in o storage capacity can become limited and costly Auto-deletion can be a useful tool in managing email volumes. It can reduce the need for manual processes which can often fail due to lack of time, resource and priority An auto-deletion policy can also encourage users to actively consider which emails have ongoing value and therefore need to be captured in the department’s EDRM solution What are the options? Once you have identified why you need to delete emails the next thing to consider is how to apply this practically. This will differ for each department, currently ranging from 90 days to four years. Departments should bear in mind that it may not be possible to use a blanket auto-deletion process due to ongoing litigation or inquiry....
It should be noted that there is no special policy for emails - there is a general policy on what information should be retained. Procedures for emails are merely a subset of that, and subject to the overarching rules.
Remarkable (and very sad) loss of wherewithal and utility in the Conservative Party. It's as if its collective brain has withered away with age. 1834 is nearly two centuries ago after all.
Is it Islamophobic if you'd prefer not to have a Christian or a Muslim PM? IE prefer a PM who is not religious at all.
I don't think there are many people here who think it wouldn't be sexist to oppose a woman PM, or racist to oppose a black PM. Or, obviously, anti-semitic to oppose a Jewish PM. Or homophobic to oppose a gay or lesbian PM.
But Anti-Muslim prejudice is acceptable in some quarters, in a way that other prejudices aren't.
Comments
Also, while NATO is becoming irrelevant and, more importantly, unpopular in the US the alliance with Australia is growing in strategic importance.
Another issue re the exodus I have been told for GPs is the insurance and the annual verification you are up to date. Can't remember what that is called now. It must deter GPs going part time so they just stop altogether. However in my wife's case her employer pays that so she was able to continue on a 3 day week rather than retiring.
Treason by the MoS? My reaction may be a bit over the top, but leaking an Ambassadors private messages and assessment could be seen as giving comfort and aid to the Queen's enemies, surely.
And while we are at it -
Gerrard and Lampard COULD play together for England.
Whatever doesn't kill you does NOT make you stronger.
The darkest hour is NOT just before the dawn.
It is NOT difficult to know where to draw the line.
It is NOT the economy stupid.
And if you watch the pennies the pounds do NOT look after themselves.
And 'lucky to have a pair of shoes' is a load of old cobblers.Shoes, like other clothes were, IIRC rationed and price controlled. Not glamorous perhaps but available.
https://twitter.com/politico/status/1146713535105425413
Happy to be corrected on this.
Whether it justifies her being favourite is quite another matter.
The corollary to the 'everything to do with the EU' guff is that the slightly low rent boiler repair man should look to the EU as being his benefactor (which I'm pretty sure he won't).
https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Mortianna
I don't think it a question of discarding the alliance so much as insuring against US indifference. All theoretical for now, but that it is being considered is interesting.
https://twitter.com/lennonart1/status/1147375262876745729
https://twitter.com/BrewDog/status/1146744176329015296
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html#polls
It's almost as if the writers decide their story, THEN look at the polls and fit it around the polls rather than looking at the polls and writing the story off the back of that - which when it's a story about a poll surely should be the way round to do it ?
Side note, @Realclearpolitics looks wrong, and with the excellent Huffpo not covering the race either - hmm...
Of course she could fall flat on her face during the next debate.
An up to date prophecy...
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/451789-warren-moves-into-lead-in-the-hills-democratic-presidential-rankings
Which of
Sir Alan Duncan KCMG MP
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Mark Field MP
Harriet Baldwin MP and
Dr Andrew Murrison MP
https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers
Might harbour ambitions to be HM Ambassador to Washington?
Up next, Betsy Ross in the next Dem debate...
I do agree that 3 on betfair for Kamala to get the nom is not justified by the evidence. I think we are seeing the old pendulum overswing. She had drifted too much and has now steamed in too much. Perhaps you should lay more and get your average price down.
And I missed out the king of false sayings from my previous post. "Everything happens for a reason." That’s my all time most unfavourite thing to hear. If somebody says that in my presence I go absolutely ballistic. Even if it's a nice person with woke political views such Laura Pidcock.
In any event, the field will winnow itself out over the next few months. Come September/October it will be at most four or five frontrunners, plus maybe a couple of stubborn no hopers.
For now it's about survival and funding; then it gets real.
SCOTLAND YARD may be called in to investigate the "unpatriotic" leak of diplomatic cableswritten by the British ambassadord to Wathington, in which he was scathing about Donald Trump's administration.
I am a voter
You are an entryist.
Its worth bearing in mind that in 2014 SLAB had the vast majority of Scottish MPs, nearly as many Local Councillors as the SNP and also in 2014 SLAB won as many MEPs as the SNP.
Fast forward to now and the situation has changed. Did SLAB win as many MEPs as the SNP this time? No, they came fifth and won 0!
It would have to be a politician/SpAd with clearance to see the ambassadors memos now, because it includes new ones just sent. Somehow I doubt backbencher Boris let alone MEP Farage has that clearance right now.
What about public inquiries years after events, never mind stuff for historians.
Future historians are going to find there's an endless splurge of commentary but personal correspondence between people may very well be lost as it's mostly electronic now (diaries still exist, of course, but they're also going to be quite subjective).
Anyway, I must be off. Been having exciting electricity problems again so that's more cause for joy.
But the idea that Farage might be informed in some manner not quite so farfetched. Perhaps he was just bullshitting as usual, but he seemed awfully certain of the motivations for the leak, while on the radio this morning.
Duncan: 17 July 2016
Ahmad: 13 June 2017
Murrison 9 May 2019
Field: 13 June 2017
Baldwin: 9 January 2018
So that would rule out Murrison or Baldwin. Ahmad & Field would be tight....Duncan has been there longest.
Auto-deletion does occur, but within guidelines:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/guidance-principles-on-the-deletion-of-email.pdf
Links to information management guidance here:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/
https://twitter.com/KateHoeyMP/status/1148198081143476225
Odds can stay out of kilter for some time, and there are only three weeks to go until the next debate. If Biden has a shocker again...
I'd be more comfortable shorting Harris at this point.
https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-donald-trump-would-make-good-british-prime-minister-tories-2019-7?r=US&IR=T
Also I suppose possible he goes into the next round of debates with super-low expectations and slightly overperforms them, gets some positive headlines, then moves up to 5 or something.
However Remain voters gave Trump the highest net negative rating
Why don't they go and live in Alabama?
He despairs for his country. If only Tsipras had been true to his word things could now be very different in Greece.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/guidance-principles-on-the-deletion-of-email.pdf
To delete or not to delete?
Emails of historical value and enduring public interest should be kept
However, email volumes can become unmanageable, leading to real problems. For example:
o there is a risk of a breach of the Data Protection Act if emails contain personal or sensitive information
o information retained long term in mailboxes may pose more of a security risk o they can be difficult to search and find information in
o storage capacity can become limited and costly
Auto-deletion can be a useful tool in managing email volumes. It can reduce the need for manual processes which can often fail due to lack of time, resource and priority
An auto-deletion policy can also encourage users to actively consider which emails have ongoing value and therefore need to be captured in the department’s EDRM solution
What are the options?
Once you have identified why you need to delete emails the next thing to consider is how to apply this practically. This will differ for each department, currently ranging from 90 days to four years.
Departments should bear in mind that it may not be possible to use a blanket auto-deletion process due to ongoing litigation or inquiry....
It should be noted that there is no special policy for emails - there is a general policy on what information should be retained. Procedures for emails are merely a subset of that, and subject to the overarching rules.
Business Insider is completely unreadable as a news source.
Remarkable (and very sad) loss of wherewithal and utility in the Conservative Party. It's as if its collective brain has withered away with age. 1834 is nearly two centuries ago after all.
Perhaps the time has come for Switzerland.
Sounds like fertile ground for some determined investigative journalism.
But Anti-Muslim prejudice is acceptable in some quarters, in a way that other prejudices aren't.