Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries · 4h So, when people in an office buy a cake in the middle of the afternoon for someone else they are working in the office with and stop for ten minutes to sing happy birthday and then go back to their desks, this is now called a party
Isabel Oakeshott @IsabelOakeshott · 1h Trying to picture how Carrie’s interior designer Lulu Lytle fits into this generous take on events?? Did she take a ten minute break from hanging the gold wallpaper upstairs to pop in for some Victoria sponge?
OK so I was willing to give them a break for the party in the garden which is a reasonable place to have a party even if the boffins have decided to ban it in the official policy because it's too hard to communicate the difference between "indoors" and "outdoors" to the great unwashed.
But in the middle of the pandemic these people are doing *indoor singing*??? I don't care about the hypocrisy which should is what you'd expect of Boris but how can you be so fucking stupid?
The Prime Minister needs to fire his wife.
I know it’s considered misogynistic to criticise Carrie, but she’s the only PM spouse I’m aware of who lost her last job due to “expense irregularities”.
2010 - spoilt ballot 2015 - green 2017 - lib dem 2019 - labour
So you are centre left then, not a swing voter.
To be a swing voter you would at least need to have voted Conservative twice from 2010 to 2019, ideally in 2015 and 2019 when the Tories won majorities
What a load of bollox. A swing voter is simply someone who changes from their previous voting pattern. they do not need to be serial swingers, nor do they need pampas grass in their front garden or a packet of OMO visible in their front window.
No, a swing voter is someone who decides elections eg voted Tory under Thatcher and Major from 1979 to 1992, then for Blair and New Labour from 1997 to 2005 and has voted Tory since
True enough. I voted Communist in a council election in Leeds when I was an idealistic 18-year old.
snap - Bulwell (east?) Nottingham 1987
John Peck?
I should think so? A Communist friend from Nottingham told me wryly that they worked for 20 years to get to the point that he was about become Mayor...whereupon he switched to the Greens. The key to his success was basically that he was a much-respected local GP.
One bright spot for Boris is that the report will find that amid a room full of people engaged in singing, only one person declined to join in. The name of this single beacon of sense and responsibility? Boris Johnson.
Allegra is the killer image. One that the poor woman will have to endure for a long time to come and in many ways she was the most blameless of all of them. Just collateral damage working for a bunch of Hooray Henrys
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
I don't think that I will be voting Tory again, at least not in the foreseeable future, but those would be a step in the right direction.
As a matter of interest, when was the last time you voted Tory at a general election?
2010
I have voted in every GE since 1983, this was the only Conservative vote.
Well at least you have not never voted Tory, albeit you did not vote Tory in 2015 and 2019 when the Tories won majorities
I've never voted Tory. Does that mean I'm cancelled?
No, though I think the closest thing we have on PB to a swing voter is BigG. Voted Labour for Blair in 1997 and 2001 and has voted Tory since but not keen on Boris
I have voted for 5 different parties at GE.
Con 1 Lib 1 SDP 1 Lib Dem 2 Green 2 Lab 3
Since 1983
Oh, what the hell:
Labour 1997 LD 2001 LD 2005 Tory 2010 Labour 2015 Tory 2017 Tory 2019
That strikes me as the sanest swing pattern ever. You are the swingierest sheep of all Sunil, we should anoint you with a bell around your neck.
Though he is personally (partly) responsible for the present idiot being in No 10.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries · 4h So, when people in an office buy a cake in the middle of the afternoon for someone else they are working in the office with and stop for ten minutes to sing happy birthday and then go back to their desks, this is now called a party
Isabel Oakeshott @IsabelOakeshott · 1h Trying to picture how Carrie’s interior designer Lulu Lytle fits into this generous take on events?? Did she take a ten minute break from hanging the gold wallpaper upstairs to pop in for some Victoria sponge?
OK so I was willing to give them a break for the party in the garden which is a reasonable place to have a party even if the boffins have decided to ban it in the official policy because it's too hard to communicate the difference between "indoors" and "outdoors" to the great unwashed.
But in the middle of the pandemic these people are doing *indoor singing*??? I don't care about the hypocrisy which should is what you'd expect of Boris but how can you be so fucking stupid?
The Prime Minister needs to fire his wife.
What you and the rest of us are once again forgetting is that rules are only for the ordinary people.
This is my point though: I can get how if you were engaged with this complicated problem you might have a more nuanced understanding of the situation than version you put in the official rules, which will inevitably be simplified and dumbed down since it has to be explained to the entire country (50% of whom are of below average intelligence), then enforced by the police (maybe 90% of whom are of below average intelligence). So I can see how you could end up doing something that's against the rules, but not actually very dangerous.
This is the opposite: It's not that it's against the rules, it's that regardless of what the rules are, it's an incredibly stupid thing to be doing.
I remain totally un-outraged by partygate. However, it's clear I am in a small minority. For me, this is an opportunity for Boris to be moved on - his legacy is assured, and now we should bring in a more businesslike PM and leader of the Tory Party.
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
I don't think that I will be voting Tory again, at least not in the foreseeable future, but those would be a step in the right direction.
As a matter of interest, when was the last time you voted Tory at a general election?
2010
I have voted in every GE since 1983, this was the only Conservative vote.
Well at least you have not never voted Tory, albeit you did not vote Tory in 2015 and 2019 when the Tories won majorities
I've never voted Tory. Does that mean I'm cancelled?
No, though I think the closest thing we have on PB to a swing voter is BigG. Voted Labour for Blair in 1997 and 2001 and has voted Tory since but not keen on Boris
I have voted for 5 different parties at GE.
Con 1 Lib 1 SDP 1 Lib Dem 2 Green 2 Lab 3
Since 1983
Oh, what the hell:
Labour 1997 LD 2001 LD 2005 Tory 2010 Labour 2015 Tory 2017 Tory 2019
That strikes me as the sanest swing pattern ever. You are the swingierest sheep of all Sunil, we should anoint you with a bell around your neck.
Though he is personally (partly) responsible for the present idiot being in No 10.
And keeping a much worse one out!
You are our bellweather Sunil, where are you leading us next if the election was tomorrow 🙂
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries · 4h So, when people in an office buy a cake in the middle of the afternoon for someone else they are working in the office with and stop for ten minutes to sing happy birthday and then go back to their desks, this is now called a party
Isabel Oakeshott @IsabelOakeshott · 1h Trying to picture how Carrie’s interior designer Lulu Lytle fits into this generous take on events?? Did she take a ten minute break from hanging the gold wallpaper upstairs to pop in for some Victoria sponge?
OK so I was willing to give them a break for the party in the garden which is a reasonable place to have a party even if the boffins have decided to ban it in the official policy because it's too hard to communicate the difference between "indoors" and "outdoors" to the great unwashed.
But in the middle of the pandemic these people are doing *indoor singing*??? I don't care about the hypocrisy which should is what you'd expect of Boris but how can you be so fucking stupid?
The Prime Minister needs to fire his wife.
What you and the rest of us are once again forgetting is that rules are only for the ordinary people.
This is my point though: I can get how if you were engaged with this complicated problem you might have a more nuanced understanding of the situation than version you put in the official rules, which will inevitably be simplified and dumbed down since it has to be explained to the entire country (50% of whom are of below average intelligence), then enforced by the police (maybe 90% of whom are of below average intelligence). So I can see how you could end up doing something that's against the rules, but not actually very dangerous.
This is the opposite: It's not that it's against the rules, it's that regardless of what the rules are, it's an incredibly stupid thing to be doing.
Basically everybody working in #10 had had covid by then, so from a purely "dangerous" thing to do it wasn't. I think that is probably why the idea of hanging around having a piss up every Friday evening when the pubs were closed didn't concern people on a purely individualist level.
Politically dangerous, absolutely, so many people involved, it was never going to not leak.
I remain totally un-outraged by partygate. However, it's clear I am in a small minority. For me, this is an opportunity for Boris to be moved on - his legacy is assured, and now we should bring in a more businesslike PM and leader of the Tory Party.
His legacy is assured? Most parties in 24 hours. Shortest time served by a PM? Only serving PM with Amnesia?
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
I don't think that I will be voting Tory again, at least not in the foreseeable future, but those would be a step in the right direction.
As a matter of interest, when was the last time you voted Tory at a general election?
2010
I have voted in every GE since 1983, this was the only Conservative vote.
Well at least you have not never voted Tory, albeit you did not vote Tory in 2015 and 2019 when the Tories won majorities
I've never voted Tory. Does that mean I'm cancelled?
No, though I think the closest thing we have on PB to a swing voter is BigG. Voted Labour for Blair in 1997 and 2001 and has voted Tory since but not keen on Boris
I have voted for 5 different parties at GE.
Con 1 Lib 1 SDP 1 Lib Dem 2 Green 2 Lab 3
Since 1983
Oh, what the hell:
Labour 1997 LD 2001 LD 2005 Tory 2010 Labour 2015 Tory 2017 Tory 2019
That strikes me as the sanest swing pattern ever. You are the swingierest sheep of all Sunil, we should anoint you with a bell around your neck.
Though he is personally (partly) responsible for the present idiot being in No 10.
And keeping a much worse one out!
You are our bellweather Sunil, where are you leading us next if the election was tomorrow 🙂
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
There are ways of doing this while still doing a face to face interview.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
Talking of controlling matters, have you seen the story in the Guardian about Dr Konstancja Duff. Another humdinger of an arrest and strip search at the notorious Stoke Newington nick, oh and the subsequent failed prosecution and civil action between the Professor and the Met.
Little sympathy on here I would wager. She looks a bit "Me too, woke".
Interesting story. As someone who was subjected to a vaguely similar ordeal by the police 20 years ago I've got a lot of sympathy for her and the fact that she fought this out for years and eventually won.
However, I can also see that it really isn't a good idea for members of the public to obstruct police actions. You can't ever know what you are getting in to.
Yes but there are some quite important details that the guardian have missed. Firstly, the guy that the police were searching actually had a knife on him. Secondly, after intervening in their operation to hand out her card, she engaged in 'passive resistance', forcing her to be carried to the van.
So what? She'd committed no offence and passively refusing to cooperate in the arrest seems a reasonable response. But even if she'd been guilty of some dreadful crime, the gloating victimisation of her would be just disgusting.
It was undoubtedly horrible and I have not tried to defend it. My experience was not as bad but was still terrifying and probably induced a form of PTSD, the police tried to frame me for crashing a car and colluded with paramedics to invent a story that I had denied medical treatment on the scene to try and force me in to a confession. When I refused they didn't arrest me and just told me to get lost. This was after I had nearly been hit by the same speeding car, and I had called the police from a nearby phonebox to report the incident. Afterwards, I went back to the scene and told the policewoman involved that I had lost all my faith in human society, and she and her colleagues just laughed at me like I was an idiot. In the end I have come to accept that the police are just like that, on balance it is better that they are there to solve big problems, you always have to be extremely cautious when dealing with them and essentially you can never trust them. This approach seems to have served me ok for the last 20 years.
Even after all that, I think that in almost all cases police should be left to do their work. They are the product of a certain adversarial justice system and keep us safe. I would rather have the police force that we have than policing by philosophy professors who want to abolish the police. We've seen exactly where that leads in the USA, in 2020. Overall it is not a good idea to intervene whilst they are apprehending someone armed with a knife.
True enough. I voted Communist in a council election in Leeds when I was an idealistic 18-year old.
snap - Bulwell (east?) Nottingham 1987
John Peck?
I should think so? A Communist friend from Nottingham told me wryly that they worked for 20 years to get to the point that he was about become Mayor...whereupon he switched to the Greens. The key to his success was basically that he was a much-respected local GP.
Hi Nick, Thought He turned Green as the CPGB was packing up - He was one of the nicest blokes I have ever met
Allegra is the killer image. One that the poor woman will have to endure for a long time to come and in many ways she was the most blameless of all of them. Just collateral damage working for a bunch of Hooray Henrys
I don't think it is the killer image as, ultimately, very few people know who she is or cares that she's gone.
But I agree it's increasingly unclear why her head had to roll while others remain attached. I mean, she was laughing at how indefensible the position was for a press secretary, and she was 100% right.
True enough. I voted Communist in a council election in Leeds when I was an idealistic 18-year old.
snap - Bulwell (east?) Nottingham 1987
John Peck?
I should think so? A Communist friend from Nottingham told me wryly that they worked for 20 years to get to the point that he was about become Mayor...whereupon he switched to the Greens. The key to his success was basically that he was a much-respected local GP.
Hi Nick, Thought He turned Green as the CPGB was packing up - He was one of the nicest blokes I have ever met
I wasn't around then (it was years later that I became friends with the ex-Communist from Nottingham, who by then was in Switzerland like me) so I'm sure you're right. Glad he was nice - the basic idea of "From each according to ability, to each according to means" is a kind one, though horribly perverted by powermongers and murderers over the years.
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
There are ways of doing this while still doing a face to face interview.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
Talking of controlling matters, have you seen the story in the Guardian about Dr Konstancja Duff. Another humdinger of an arrest and strip search at the notorious Stoke Newington nick, oh and the subsequent failed prosecution and civil action between the Professor and the Met.
Little sympathy on here I would wager. She looks a bit "Me too, woke".
Interesting story. As someone who was subjected to a vaguely similar ordeal by the police 20 years ago I've got a lot of sympathy for her and the fact that she fought this out for years and eventually won.
However, I can also see that it really isn't a good idea for members of the public to obstruct police actions. You can't ever know what you are getting in to.
Yes but there are some quite important details that the guardian have missed. Firstly, the guy that the police were searching actually had a knife on him. Secondly, after intervening in their operation to hand out her card, she engaged in 'passive resistance', forcing her to be carried to the van.
So what? She'd committed no offence and passively refusing to cooperate in the arrest seems a reasonable response. But even if she'd been guilty of some dreadful crime, the gloating victimisation of her would be just disgusting.
It was undoubtedly horrible and I have not tried to defend it. My experience was not as bad but was still terrifying and probably induced a form of PTSD, the police tried to frame me for crashing a car and colluded with paramedics to invent a story that I had denied medical treatment on the scene to try and force me in to a confession. When I refused they didn't arrest me and just told me to get lost. This was after I had nearly been hit by the same speeding car, and I had called the police from a nearby phonebox to report the incident. Afterwards, I went back to the scene and told the policewoman involved that I had lost all my faith in human society, and she and her colleagues just laughed at me like I was an idiot. In the end I have come to accept that the police are just like that, on balance it is better that they are there to solve big problems, you always have to be extremely cautious when dealing with them and essentially you can never trust them. This approach seems to have served me ok for the last 20 years.
Even after all that, I think that in almost all cases police should be left to do their work. They are the product of a certain adversarial justice system and keep us safe. I would rather have the police force that we have than policing by philosophy professors who want to abolish the police. We've seen exactly where that leads in the USA, in 2020. Overall it is not a good idea to intervene whilst they are apprehending someone armed with a knife.
Your experience sounds appalling. I broadly agree with your conclusions, but there is a middle ground - on the whole, the police I met in Denmark and Switzerland were firm but polite, including the one who nearly charged me for inadevertently overstaying my visa - he civilly told me he was thinking of arresting me and asked whether I would like legal adivce before I replied. In Britain I suspect he'd have said I was a lying fucker.
It's illuminating that the Scandi TV crime series like The Killing have sexed-up subtitles in English, because British audiences don't think police are credible unless they go round swearing at the suspects.
Just caught up with the Minister actually resigning at the Dispatch Box - never seen that before, amazing, right down to the curt "Goodbye". When was the last time that happened?
Put head on pillow. Couldn’t sleep. There is something odd about Cummings not willing to talk to Sue Gray. I can’t quite put my finger on it. This is the peculiar way he explained it.
“It's reported everywhere that I am seeing Sue Gray today. This is wrong. I am not seeing/talking to her. Why? Since leaving government I've tried to help with a few things, some directly and some very quietly. One such thing involved discussing the security services. Only me and two officials knew what I said. They briefed the PM. Within minutes, one of the lobby infamous for being a stooge was calling the Cabinet Office making claims about MI5 and me. The officials apologised and said, reasonably, the system doesn't work when a PM behaves like this. So when SG asked to speak to me I emailed to the effect: if we speak the PM will invent nonsense and spin it to the media and you and I will both have problems, let's keep everything in writing, therefore he cannot invent things I've supposedly said to you, there is only a written record, this makes both our lives easier. She agreed. So I have answered questions in writing and will answer further questions in writing if she wants. But I will not speak and therefore provide the PM with more chances to lie and confuse everybody."
First thing. The anecdote example given doesn’t explain at all the need for writing being better than verbals, does it? He was bullish last week about swearing on oath - has he had any contact with anyone since to shake him up a bit?
Second thing. Reading between the lines where he himself takes us back in time, he spoke to security, they shared with PM, PM shared it with friendly contact in lobby (to smear him?) - have the security people had a suspicion about Cummings, some sort of skeleton in his closet his political enemies can use? Cummings spent three years in Russia from 1994 to 1997 after he graduated from Oxford, that would be a post communist Russia, I don’t know at all how he was helping out though he is not without skills, but did he make good relationships with any figures in Russian politics, and got some help back when heading leave campaign because of that - is that what security, largely pro remain, maybe irked about, as they feel Russian help was interference or cheating?
What do you think? Weird isn’t it, if things not weird enough! Are Russians involved in Partygate? If you consider the timing? Maybe it’s not Norman leaking but Tatiana of the SMERSH Spy Ninjas? 😲
I feel sorry for our security authorities a bit - there’s allegations that money has flowed into British politics from the highly organised and sneaky Russians - meanwhile there’s politicians from all party’s who love a drink, money, and sex - and poor security forces have to keep our democracy out of trouble and our politics and elections as clean as possible ☹️
Just been told to put ******* pad down as ******* been on it all day
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
That should be even more newsworthy than parties. It’s about £73 for every person in the UK! Lay Sunak!
I'm not entirely clear. Is this £5 billion where companies have taken out bounce back loans (possibly fraudulently) and then gone bump / failed to pay, or does it also include companies which got loans for which they were ineligible, but are currently still paying the loan back?
£5 billion at the maximum £50k per loan is 100k loans out of ~1.5 million, or about 7%. If that's the loss rate, that's unsurprising given they were dishing out £50k loans left right and centre in the middle of a pandemic. My business has a bounceback loan. When I bought it, my accountant was quite surprised that the previous owners wanted to do a share sale - apparently a lot of unscrupulous types have been selling business as assets sales, running off with the loot then busting the old company complete with its unsecured debt - apparently doing this with a bounceback loan is pretty much consequence free.
The Cummings thing is literally just because he wants an undeniable paper trail of everything given to Sue Gray. Emails sent to her .gov email account will be logged even if he or she deletes them. Going to Whitehall to give the exact same information he's sent by email - even if he insisted on recording everything on a tape or something, which is basically what he's done here except much more complicated - will open him up to allegations he said things off the record to her before going into the meeting.
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
The Treasury "appears to have no knowledge or little interest in the consequences of fraud to our economy or our society", said Lord Agnew, resigning today at dispatch box.
Think how much tax can be cut with that 🤑 though there is also option to use it on hospital, schools or defence.
This was always going to become a story at some point - awful time for Rishi if it becomes a story right now. It’s currently keeping Boris latest party revelation off the top of the Sky page headlines. 😕
And there’s more to come, as this has yet to grow into a big story too, though it’s day will come?
Will be interesting to observe if pro Boris media go after Sunak as a means of helping Boris position…
From a political betting point of view there is just too much going on at once!
Relative to the amount of money spent on track and trace / furlough it’s small beer and it kept a lot of businesses going that might otherwise have died.
Yes more should be being done about fraud but Lord Agnew seems to be complaining that someone didn’t do the work he seems to have been responsible for
That massively overestimates his powers and responsibilities with regard to the scheme, or indeed any arm of government.
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
The Treasury "appears to have no knowledge or little interest in the consequences of fraud to our economy or our society", said Lord Agnew, resigning today at dispatch box.
Think how much tax can be cut with that 🤑 though there is also option to use it on hospital, schools or defence.
This was always going to become a story at some point - awful time for Rishi if it becomes a story right now. It’s currently keeping Boris latest party revelation off the top of the Sky page headlines. 😕
And there’s more to come, as this has yet to grow into a big story too, though it’s day will come?
Will be interesting to observe if pro Boris media go after Sunak as a means of helping Boris position…
From a political betting point of view there is just too much going on at once!
Relative to the amount of money spent on track and trace / furlough it’s small beer and it kept a lot of businesses going that might otherwise have died.
Yes more should be being done about fraud but Lord Agnew seems to be complaining that someone didn’t do the work he seems to have been responsible for
That massively overestimates his powers and responsibilities with regard to the scheme, or indeed any arm of government.
This whole fraud thing goes to the same issues as sensitivity and specificity in diagnostic test performance. In general, the more you want to be sure to find everyone who is infected, the more you want sensitivity up, but that also means that specificity suffers - there will be more false positives if you want to catch all the real positives and have no false negatives. So with fraud. If you want to ensure that everyone who needs and qualifies for financial support gets it (sensitivity), that comes at the price of specificity (no false negatives - i.e. no-one missing out on what they are entitled to - means more false positives, i.e. more people getting what they shouldn't (fraud, or overpaying)
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
The Treasury "appears to have no knowledge or little interest in the consequences of fraud to our economy or our society", said Lord Agnew, resigning today at dispatch box.
Think how much tax can be cut with that 🤑 though there is also option to use it on hospital, schools or defence.
This was always going to become a story at some point - awful time for Rishi if it becomes a story right now. It’s currently keeping Boris latest party revelation off the top of the Sky page headlines. 😕
And there’s more to come, as this has yet to grow into a big story too, though it’s day will come?
Will be interesting to observe if pro Boris media go after Sunak as a means of helping Boris position…
From a political betting point of view there is just too much going on at once!
Relative to the amount of money spent on track and trace / furlough it’s small beer and it kept a lot of businesses going that might otherwise have died.
Yes more should be being done about fraud but Lord Agnew seems to be complaining that someone didn’t do the work he seems to have been responsible for
That massively overestimates his powers and responsibilities with regard to the scheme, or indeed any arm of government.
This whole fraud thing goes to the same issues as sensitivity and specificity in diagnostic test performance. In general, the more you want to be sure to find everyone who is infected, the more you want sensitivity up, but that also means that specificity suffers - there will be more false positives if you want to catch all the real positives and have no false negatives. So with fraud. If you want to ensure that everyone who needs and qualifies for financial support gets it (sensitivity), that comes at the price of specificity (no false negatives - i.e. no-one missing out on what they are entitled to - means more false positives, i.e. more people getting what they shouldn't (fraud, or overpaying)
To some extent (which is why losses were planned in from the start), but that ignores the frauds which ought to have been simple to prevent (for example to companies set up after the pandemic started), and the failure to build in incentives for later fraud recovery. As another example, the banks are responsible for recovery of some categories if fraud, but have zero incentive to go to the effort, since they receive 100% refund from the government regardless.
Regarding the question somewhere upthread about the J Webb telescope ‘orbiting’ the Lagrange point, it is of course orbiting the sun. At the Lagrange points that orbit is modified by the pull of earth’s gravity to keep it in a permanent stable position relative to earth.
But some of the Lagrange points are not quite stable gravitationally, and L2 is one of those. Wikipedia: Although the L1, L2, and L3 points are nominally unstable, there are quasi-stable periodic orbits called halo orbits around these points in a three-body system. A full n-body dynamical system such as the Solar System does not contain these periodic orbits, but does contain quasi-periodic (i.e. bounded but not precisely repeating) orbits following Lissajous-curve trajectories. These quasi-periodic Lissajous orbits are what most of Lagrangian-point space missions have used until now. Although they are not perfectly stable, a modest effort of station keeping keeps a spacecraft in a desired Lissajous orbit for a long time.
So the ‘orbit’ around a Lagrange point is actually shorthand for this ‘halo orbit’.
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
The Treasury "appears to have no knowledge or little interest in the consequences of fraud to our economy or our society", said Lord Agnew, resigning today at dispatch box.
Think how much tax can be cut with that 🤑 though there is also option to use it on hospital, schools or defence.
This was always going to become a story at some point - awful time for Rishi if it becomes a story right now. It’s currently keeping Boris latest party revelation off the top of the Sky page headlines. 😕
And there’s more to come, as this has yet to grow into a big story too, though it’s day will come?
Will be interesting to observe if pro Boris media go after Sunak as a means of helping Boris position…
From a political betting point of view there is just too much going on at once!
Relative to the amount of money spent on track and trace / furlough it’s small beer and it kept a lot of businesses going that might otherwise have died.
Yes more should be being done about fraud but Lord Agnew seems to be complaining that someone didn’t do the work he seems to have been responsible for
That massively overestimates his powers and responsibilities with regard to the scheme, or indeed any arm of government.
This whole fraud thing goes to the same issues as sensitivity and specificity in diagnostic test performance. In general, the more you want to be sure to find everyone who is infected, the more you want sensitivity up, but that also means that specificity suffers - there will be more false positives if you want to catch all the real positives and have no false negatives. So with fraud. If you want to ensure that everyone who needs and qualifies for financial support gets it (sensitivity), that comes at the price of specificity (no false negatives - i.e. no-one missing out on what they are entitled to - means more false positives, i.e. more people getting what they shouldn't (fraud, or overpaying)
Yes, in the situation of the pandemic, you want to get the cash out to as many people as possible and do the auditing later, knowing that this will come at a cost of lower recovery rates. I suspect the auditing process will take a while, some of the activity described (get loan, buy car, wind up company, sell assets to new company for pennies) is fraud that should be prosecuted if repayment is not forthcoming, there will be quite a lot that was marginal, with the loans keeping many small businesses alive for a few months during the worst of the pandemic and restrictions.
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
The Treasury "appears to have no knowledge or little interest in the consequences of fraud to our economy or our society", said Lord Agnew, resigning today at dispatch box.
Think how much tax can be cut with that 🤑 though there is also option to use it on hospital, schools or defence.
This was always going to become a story at some point - awful time for Rishi if it becomes a story right now. It’s currently keeping Boris latest party revelation off the top of the Sky page headlines. 😕
And there’s more to come, as this has yet to grow into a big story too, though it’s day will come?
Will be interesting to observe if pro Boris media go after Sunak as a means of helping Boris position…
From a political betting point of view there is just too much going on at once!
Relative to the amount of money spent on track and trace / furlough it’s small beer and it kept a lot of businesses going that might otherwise have died.
Yes more should be being done about fraud but Lord Agnew seems to be complaining that someone didn’t do the work he seems to have been responsible for
That massively overestimates his powers and responsibilities with regard to the scheme, or indeed any arm of government.
This whole fraud thing goes to the same issues as sensitivity and specificity in diagnostic test performance. In general, the more you want to be sure to find everyone who is infected, the more you want sensitivity up, but that also means that specificity suffers - there will be more false positives if you want to catch all the real positives and have no false negatives. So with fraud. If you want to ensure that everyone who needs and qualifies for financial support gets it (sensitivity), that comes at the price of specificity (no false negatives - i.e. no-one missing out on what they are entitled to - means more false positives, i.e. more people getting what they shouldn't (fraud, or overpaying)
Yes, in the situation of the pandemic, you want to get the cash out to as many people as possible and do the auditing later, knowing that this will come at a cost of lower recovery rates. I suspect the auditing process will take a while, some of the activity described (get loan, buy car, wind up company, sell assets to new company for pennies) is fraud that should be prosecuted if repayment is not forthcoming, there will be quite a lot that was marginal, with the loans keeping many small businesses alive for a few months during the worst of the pandemic and restrictions.
‘Later’ in this case being the last year during which apparently virtually nothing has been done. Read Agnew’s speech at the end of which he resigns.
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
The Treasury "appears to have no knowledge or little interest in the consequences of fraud to our economy or our society", said Lord Agnew, resigning today at dispatch box.
Think how much tax can be cut with that 🤑 though there is also option to use it on hospital, schools or defence.
This was always going to become a story at some point - awful time for Rishi if it becomes a story right now. It’s currently keeping Boris latest party revelation off the top of the Sky page headlines. 😕
And there’s more to come, as this has yet to grow into a big story too, though it’s day will come?
Will be interesting to observe if pro Boris media go after Sunak as a means of helping Boris position…
From a political betting point of view there is just too much going on at once!
Relative to the amount of money spent on track and trace / furlough it’s small beer and it kept a lot of businesses going that might otherwise have died.
Yes more should be being done about fraud but Lord Agnew seems to be complaining that someone didn’t do the work he seems to have been responsible for
That massively overestimates his powers and responsibilities with regard to the scheme, or indeed any arm of government.
This whole fraud thing goes to the same issues as sensitivity and specificity in diagnostic test performance. In general, the more you want to be sure to find everyone who is infected, the more you want sensitivity up, but that also means that specificity suffers - there will be more false positives if you want to catch all the real positives and have no false negatives. So with fraud. If you want to ensure that everyone who needs and qualifies for financial support gets it (sensitivity), that comes at the price of specificity (no false negatives - i.e. no-one missing out on what they are entitled to - means more false positives, i.e. more people getting what they shouldn't (fraud, or overpaying)
Yes, in the situation of the pandemic, you want to get the cash out to as many people as possible and do the auditing later, knowing that this will come at a cost of lower recovery rates. I suspect the auditing process will take a while, some of the activity described (get loan, buy car, wind up company, sell assets to new company for pennies) is fraud that should be prosecuted if repayment is not forthcoming, there will be quite a lot that was marginal, with the loans keeping many small businesses alive for a few months during the worst of the pandemic and restrictions.
‘Later’ in this case being the last year during which apparently virtually nothing has been done. Read Agnew’s speech at the end of which he resigns.
Indeed. It’s easy to hand out money, the difficult bit is making sure it’s accounted for. £4bn still is a huge amount of money, which has to be paid for by taxpayers over time.
This would and should be a big story, but the media are still all lapping up the “revelation” that the PM’s wife bought a cake to the office on his birthday.
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
That should be even more newsworthy than parties. It’s about £73 for every person in the UK! Lay Sunak!
I'm not entirely clear. Is this £5 billion where companies have taken out bounce back loans (possibly fraudulently) and then gone bump / failed to pay, or does it also include companies which got loans for which they were ineligible, but are currently still paying the loan back?
£5 billion at the maximum £50k per loan is 100k loans out of ~1.5 million, or about 7%. If that's the loss rate, that's unsurprising given they were dishing out £50k loans left right and centre in the middle of a pandemic. My business has a bounceback loan. When I bought it, my accountant was quite surprised that the previous owners wanted to do a share sale - apparently a lot of unscrupulous types have been selling business as assets sales, running off with the loot then busting the old company complete with its unsecured debt - apparently doing this with a bounceback loan is pretty much consequence free.
If the loan has been used to buy a motor or some such with the company quickly being dissolved after, surely there's some sort of fraud provision that covers this....
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
The Treasury "appears to have no knowledge or little interest in the consequences of fraud to our economy or our society", said Lord Agnew, resigning today at dispatch box.
Think how much tax can be cut with that 🤑 though there is also option to use it on hospital, schools or defence.
This was always going to become a story at some point - awful time for Rishi if it becomes a story right now. It’s currently keeping Boris latest party revelation off the top of the Sky page headlines. 😕
And there’s more to come, as this has yet to grow into a big story too, though it’s day will come?
Will be interesting to observe if pro Boris media go after Sunak as a means of helping Boris position…
From a political betting point of view there is just too much going on at once!
Relative to the amount of money spent on track and trace / furlough it’s small beer and it kept a lot of businesses going that might otherwise have died.
Yes more should be being done about fraud but Lord Agnew seems to be complaining that someone didn’t do the work he seems to have been responsible for
That massively overestimates his powers and responsibilities with regard to the scheme, or indeed any arm of government.
This whole fraud thing goes to the same issues as sensitivity and specificity in diagnostic test performance. In general, the more you want to be sure to find everyone who is infected, the more you want sensitivity up, but that also means that specificity suffers - there will be more false positives if you want to catch all the real positives and have no false negatives. So with fraud. If you want to ensure that everyone who needs and qualifies for financial support gets it (sensitivity), that comes at the price of specificity (no false negatives - i.e. no-one missing out on what they are entitled to - means more false positives, i.e. more people getting what they shouldn't (fraud, or overpaying)
Yes, in the situation of the pandemic, you want to get the cash out to as many people as possible and do the auditing later, knowing that this will come at a cost of lower recovery rates. I suspect the auditing process will take a while, some of the activity described (get loan, buy car, wind up company, sell assets to new company for pennies) is fraud that should be prosecuted if repayment is not forthcoming, there will be quite a lot that was marginal, with the loans keeping many small businesses alive for a few months during the worst of the pandemic and restrictions.
‘Later’ in this case being the last year during which apparently virtually nothing has been done. Read Agnew’s speech at the end of which he resigns.
Indeed. It’s easy to hand out money, the difficult bit is making sure it’s accounted for. £4bn still is a huge amount of money, which has to be paid for by taxpayers over time.
This would and should be a big story, but the media are still all lapping up the “revelation” that the PM’s wife bought a cake to the office on his birthday.
On which day he totally ignored his own rules, which thousands of other people were simultaneously being fined for disobeying.
Clearly though, these were just for the little people, and any contract between the governed and the government doesn't matter.
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
That should be even more newsworthy than parties. It’s about £73 for every person in the UK! Lay Sunak!
I'm not entirely clear. Is this £5 billion where companies have taken out bounce back loans (possibly fraudulently) and then gone bump / failed to pay, or does it also include companies which got loans for which they were ineligible, but are currently still paying the loan back?
£5 billion at the maximum £50k per loan is 100k loans out of ~1.5 million, or about 7%. If that's the loss rate, that's unsurprising given they were dishing out £50k loans left right and centre in the middle of a pandemic. My business has a bounceback loan. When I bought it, my accountant was quite surprised that the previous owners wanted to do a share sale - apparently a lot of unscrupulous types have been selling business as assets sales, running off with the loot then busting the old company complete with its unsecured debt - apparently doing this with a bounceback loan is pretty much consequence free.
If the loan has been used to buy a motor or some such with the company quickly being dissolved after, surely there's some sort of fraud provision that covers this....
The problem is one of resources. Fraud prevention is orders of magnitude less costly than following up and prosecuting once it has happened. Ditto recovery of the money.
As is evidenced by the police for many years being able to investigate only a minute percentage of reported fraud.
I suspect Agnew's resignation due to the inadequate measures to check the validity of bounce back loans or to chase down fraud may harm Sunak. The Treasury's implementation of the scheme has been inadequate, and although civil servants may take the blame Sunak has ultimate responsibility. I know it's quite a lot of words, but here is what the National Audit Office concluded in December 21:
Report conclusions To achieve the policy intention of supporting small businesses quickly during the pandemic, the government prioritised payment speed over almost all other aspects of value for money. The Scheme facilitated faster lending by removing credit and affordability checks and allowing businesses to self-certify their application documents. As the Scheme progressed, it continued to rely on businesses self- certifying their application details, even as the urgent need for finance reduced. Government ruled out options for additional upfront counter-fraud measures when the Scheme was extended. The impact of prioritising speed is apparent in the high levels of estimated fraud. Counter-fraud activity was implemented too slowly to prevent fraud effectively and the Department’s focus is now on detection and recovery of fraudulent loans.
The Department needs to improve upon its identification, quantification, and recovery of fraudulent loans within the Scheme. Compared with the scale of its ‘most likely’ estimate of £4.9 billion of fraudulent loans, both the £32 million additional budget for counter-fraud operations, and its target to recover at least £6 million of fraudulent loans from organised crime, are inadequate. The Department has given low priority to tackling ‘bottom-tier’ fraud, including those loans where borrowers misstated turnover by less than 25%, owing to resource constraints. It expects lenders to focus on this fraud tier, but they have limited commercial incentives to do so.
That's pretty damning. I expect Rachel Reeves to be all over this in the coming days. Parties will get the headlines, but this could also be damaging -Tories don't like wasting taxpayers' money.
The Treasury "appears to have no knowledge or little interest in the consequences of fraud to our economy or our society", said Lord Agnew, resigning today at dispatch box.
Think how much tax can be cut with that 🤑 though there is also option to use it on hospital, schools or defence.
This was always going to become a story at some point - awful time for Rishi if it becomes a story right now. It’s currently keeping Boris latest party revelation off the top of the Sky page headlines. 😕
And there’s more to come, as this has yet to grow into a big story too, though it’s day will come?
Will be interesting to observe if pro Boris media go after Sunak as a means of helping Boris position…
From a political betting point of view there is just too much going on at once!
Relative to the amount of money spent on track and trace / furlough it’s small beer and it kept a lot of businesses going that might otherwise have died.
Yes more should be being done about fraud but Lord Agnew seems to be complaining that someone didn’t do the work he seems to have been responsible for
That massively overestimates his powers and responsibilities with regard to the scheme, or indeed any arm of government.
This whole fraud thing goes to the same issues as sensitivity and specificity in diagnostic test performance. In general, the more you want to be sure to find everyone who is infected, the more you want sensitivity up, but that also means that specificity suffers - there will be more false positives if you want to catch all the real positives and have no false negatives. So with fraud. If you want to ensure that everyone who needs and qualifies for financial support gets it (sensitivity), that comes at the price of specificity (no false negatives - i.e. no-one missing out on what they are entitled to - means more false positives, i.e. more people getting what they shouldn't (fraud, or overpaying)
Yes, in the situation of the pandemic, you want to get the cash out to as many people as possible and do the auditing later, knowing that this will come at a cost of lower recovery rates. I suspect the auditing process will take a while, some of the activity described (get loan, buy car, wind up company, sell assets to new company for pennies) is fraud that should be prosecuted if repayment is not forthcoming, there will be quite a lot that was marginal, with the loans keeping many small businesses alive for a few months during the worst of the pandemic and restrictions.
‘Later’ in this case being the last year during which apparently virtually nothing has been done. Read Agnew’s speech at the end of which he resigns.
Indeed. It’s easy to hand out money, the difficult bit is making sure it’s accounted for. £4bn still is a huge amount of money, which has to be paid for by taxpayers over time.
This would and should be a big story, but the media are still all lapping up the “revelation” that the PM’s wife bought a cake to the office on his birthday.
On which day he totally ignored his own rules, which thousands of other people were simultaneously being fined for disobeying.
Clearly though, these were just for the little people, and any contract between the governed and the government doesn't matter.
Regarding the question somewhere upthread about the J Webb telescope ‘orbiting’ the Lagrange point, it is of course orbiting the sun. At the Lagrange points that orbit is modified by the pull of earth’s gravity to keep it in a permanent stable position relative to earth.
But some of the Lagrange points are not quite stable gravitationally, and L2 is one of those. Wikipedia: Although the L1, L2, and L3 points are nominally unstable, there are quasi-stable periodic orbits called halo orbits around these points in a three-body system. A full n-body dynamical system such as the Solar System does not contain these periodic orbits, but does contain quasi-periodic (i.e. bounded but not precisely repeating) orbits following Lissajous-curve trajectories. These quasi-periodic Lissajous orbits are what most of Lagrangian-point space missions have used until now. Although they are not perfectly stable, a modest effort of station keeping keeps a spacecraft in a desired Lissajous orbit for a long time.
So the ‘orbit’ around a Lagrange point is actually shorthand for this ‘halo orbit’.
Some detail:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00128-0 … No spacecraft are located precisely at the L2 point, because it is gravitationally unstable. “We never actually get to L2 — we get near it,” Richon says. Webb travels along an ellipse with a semimajor axis (the maximum distance between the spacecraft and L2) that ranges between 250,000 and 832,000 kilometres. Webb does not pass into the Moon’s shadow, allowing its solar panels to remain fully charged and its antennas to communicate constantly with Earth.
To stay in this orbit, Webb needs to make small adjustments about once every three weeks, burning its thrusters to keep it looping around L2. Otherwise, the mission would drift off into interplanetary space. If nothing goes wrong, Webb’s lifetime will be dictated by when it runs out of the fuel it carries to keep it in position around L2...
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries · 4h So, when people in an office buy a cake in the middle of the afternoon for someone else they are working in the office with and stop for ten minutes to sing happy birthday and then go back to their desks, this is now called a party
Isabel Oakeshott @IsabelOakeshott · 1h Trying to picture how Carrie’s interior designer Lulu Lytle fits into this generous take on events?? Did she take a ten minute break from hanging the gold wallpaper upstairs to pop in for some Victoria sponge?
OK so I was willing to give them a break for the party in the garden which is a reasonable place to have a party even if the boffins have decided to ban it in the official policy because it's too hard to communicate the difference between "indoors" and "outdoors" to the great unwashed.
But in the middle of the pandemic these people are doing *indoor singing*??? I don't care about the hypocrisy which should is what you'd expect of Boris but how can you be so fucking stupid?
The Prime Minister needs to fire his wife.
"But officer, I only broke the law for less than ten minutes."
I interact with Russians based in Moscow most weeks. They largely think the West is barmy and are overplaying not very much into a massive crisis. And they are incredulous at the idea that Putin will do anything deserving of wide ranging sanctions.
Not saying they are right of course. Just that it’s interesting how we are all a product of the informational narratives we consume (or that are fed to us).
Meanwhile I see Biden is upping the stakes with more troops in the Baltics. Or to view it another way, he is clearly showing Putin his hand that he can do whatever he likes in Ukraine but mustn’t touch existing NATO states.
Miserable times for some long suffering people ahead I think.
I interact with Russians based in Moscow most weeks. They largely think the West is barmy and are overplaying not very much into a massive crisis. And they are incredulous at the idea that Putin will do anything deserving of wide ranging sanctions.
Not saying they are right of course. Just that it’s interesting how we are all a product of the informational narratives we consume (or that are fed to us).
Meanwhile I see Biden is upping the stakes with more troops in the Baltics. Or to view it another way, he is clearly showing Putin his hand that he can do whatever he likes in Ukraine but mustn’t touch existing NATO states.
Miserable times for some long suffering people ahead I think.
Russian state media has been running the narrative for months now, both that Western nations are provoking Russia and that Ukraine is Russian territory.
It’s a convenient narrative that gets away from a very poor Covid effort, and makes Putin seem like the rational man responding to the aggression of others, rather than being the agressor himself.
I interact with Russians based in Moscow most weeks. They largely think the West is barmy and are overplaying not very much into a massive crisis. And they are incredulous at the idea that Putin will do anything deserving of wide ranging sanctions.
Not saying they are right of course. Just that it’s interesting how we are all a product of the informational narratives we consume (or that are fed to us).
Meanwhile I see Biden is upping the stakes with more troops in the Baltics. Or to view it another way, he is clearly showing Putin his hand that he can do whatever he likes in Ukraine but mustn’t touch existing NATO states.
Miserable times for some long suffering people ahead I think.
Russian state media has been running the narrative for months now, both that Western nations are provoking Russia and that Ukraine is Russian territory.
It’s a convenient narrative that gets away from a very poor Covid effort, and makes Putin seem like the rational man responding to the aggression of others, rather than being the agressor himself.
One wonders if by the time of the next Winter Olympics, things will have moved onto Russia carving out a corridor through Lithuania to Kaliningrad.
Do we expect Sue Gray to ever complete her report? Or, if she does, for anything ever to be published. PM's questions tomorrow may well be dominated by the Ukraine situation.
I interact with Russians based in Moscow most weeks. They largely think the West is barmy and are overplaying not very much into a massive crisis. And they are incredulous at the idea that Putin will do anything deserving of wide ranging sanctions.
Not saying they are right of course. Just that it’s interesting how we are all a product of the informational narratives we consume (or that are fed to us).
Meanwhile I see Biden is upping the stakes with more troops in the Baltics. Or to view it another way, he is clearly showing Putin his hand that he can do whatever he likes in Ukraine but mustn’t touch existing NATO states.
Miserable times for some long suffering people ahead I think.
Russian state media has been running the narrative for months now, both that Western nations are provoking Russia and that Ukraine is Russian territory.
It’s a convenient narrative that gets away from a very poor Covid effort, and makes Putin seem like the rational man responding to the aggression of others, rather than being the agressor himself.
One wonders if by the time of the next Winter Olympics, things will have moved onto Russia carving out a corridor through Lithuania to Kaliningrad.
I recall looking at maps published before WWII and reading, very early in my 'becoming aware' time of the isolation of that area, then, of course, East Prussia, part of Germany. I now occasionally meet, if only virtually, with someone whp teaches at the University of Gdansk, which on those old, stamp album maps was Danzig! And reading about the 'Polish Corridor'.
I'll still believe it when he's gone. They should've had the VONC a week or two ago (or, rather, last year).
Edited extra bit: Starmer back out to 12.5 for next PM, Betfair.
The Meeks spreadsheet that someone linked to of every MP’s statement was quite revealing. Seems increasingly clear that the weight of the parliamentary party is awaiting the report not to see if it exonerates the PM or in the hope that something else comes along to save him, but so that it appears that due process has been followed. Many will be stung by the botched assassination job on T May and want to make sure this time they shoot to kill.
Speaking of T May, I can report she was door knocking in her constituency at the weekend. And not because of the local elections because there aren’t any there. Intriguing.
Parties gate is analogous to the expenses scandal.
There was and seems now is a blurring of the distinction between rules and acceptable behaviour. Every MP asked and was given permission for their expenses but the public was outraged.
There is no doubt there is a huge grey area around "No10" as a home/workplace. Add to that the fact that it is also the heart of government and we are where we are.
Not helped by Boris' evident disinclination to study the actual rules and the public having a why doesn't the PM go on official state visits via easyJet and take the president of Urumba to KFC moment.
I'll still believe it when he's gone. They should've had the VONC a week or two ago (or, rather, last year).
Edited extra bit: Starmer back out to 12.5 for next PM, Betfair.
The Meeks spreadsheet that someone linked to of every MP’s statement was quite revealing. Seems increasingly clear that the weight of the parliamentary party is awaiting the report not to see if it exonerates the PM or in the hope that something else comes along to save him, but so that it appears that due process has been followed. Many will be stung by the botched assassination job on T May and want to make sure this time they shoot to kill.
Speaking of T May, I can report she was door knocking in her constituency at the weekend. And not because of the local elections because there aren’t any there. Intriguing.
Noting the last paragraph, I was at a small gathering in Witham last week. Priti Patel came up in conversation and several people remarked she hadn't been seen at her constituency 'home' for quite a while.
Regarding the question somewhere upthread about the J Webb telescope ‘orbiting’ the Lagrange point, it is of course orbiting the sun. At the Lagrange points that orbit is modified by the pull of earth’s gravity to keep it in a permanent stable position relative to earth.
But some of the Lagrange points are not quite stable gravitationally, and L2 is one of those. Wikipedia: Although the L1, L2, and L3 points are nominally unstable, there are quasi-stable periodic orbits called halo orbits around these points in a three-body system. A full n-body dynamical system such as the Solar System does not contain these periodic orbits, but does contain quasi-periodic (i.e. bounded but not precisely repeating) orbits following Lissajous-curve trajectories. These quasi-periodic Lissajous orbits are what most of Lagrangian-point space missions have used until now. Although they are not perfectly stable, a modest effort of station keeping keeps a spacecraft in a desired Lissajous orbit for a long time.
So the ‘orbit’ around a Lagrange point is actually shorthand for this ‘halo orbit’.
Some detail:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00128-0 … No spacecraft are located precisely at the L2 point, because it is gravitationally unstable. “We never actually get to L2 — we get near it,” Richon says. Webb travels along an ellipse with a semimajor axis (the maximum distance between the spacecraft and L2) that ranges between 250,000 and 832,000 kilometres. Webb does not pass into the Moon’s shadow, allowing its solar panels to remain fully charged and its antennas to communicate constantly with Earth.
To stay in this orbit, Webb needs to make small adjustments about once every three weeks, burning its thrusters to keep it looping around L2. Otherwise, the mission would drift off into interplanetary space. If nothing goes wrong, Webb’s lifetime will be dictated by when it runs out of the fuel it carries to keep it in position around L2...
That’s an awesome achievement by NASA, although now follows three months of hard work as they get the mirror adjusted into the correct shape for observations. There were so many points of failure that might have doomed the mission before it began, but thankfully the years of effort that went into assembling and testing it paid off.
I'll still believe it when he's gone. They should've had the VONC a week or two ago (or, rather, last year).
Edited extra bit: Starmer back out to 12.5 for next PM, Betfair.
The Meeks spreadsheet that someone linked to of every MP’s statement was quite revealing. Seems increasingly clear that the weight of the parliamentary party is awaiting the report not to see if it exonerates the PM or in the hope that something else comes along to save him, but so that it appears that due process has been followed. Many will be stung by the botched assassination job on T May and want to make sure this time they shoot to kill.
Speaking of T May, I can report she was door knocking in her constituency at the weekend. And not because of the local elections because there aren’t any there. Intriguing.
Noting the last paragraph, I was at a small gathering in Witham last week. Priti Patel came up in conversation and several people remarked she hadn't been seen at her constituency 'home' for quite a while.
Edit. Or about in the town.
Maybe shes been too busy hosting Fizzy with Priti or something
I'll still believe it when he's gone. They should've had the VONC a week or two ago (or, rather, last year).
Edited extra bit: Starmer back out to 12.5 for next PM, Betfair.
The Meeks spreadsheet that someone linked to of every MP’s statement was quite revealing. Seems increasingly clear that the weight of the parliamentary party is awaiting the report not to see if it exonerates the PM or in the hope that something else comes along to save him, but so that it appears that due process has been followed. Many will be stung by the botched assassination job on T May and want to make sure this time they shoot to kill.
Speaking of T May, I can report she was door knocking in her constituency at the weekend. And not because of the local elections because there aren’t any there. Intriguing.
Perhaps she just wanted to hear hundreds of people saying 'Boris is a m***** f****** c***' to her?
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
There are ways of doing this while still doing a face to face interview.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
Talking of controlling matters, have you seen the story in the Guardian about Dr Konstancja Duff. Another humdinger of an arrest and strip search at the notorious Stoke Newington nick, oh and the subsequent failed prosecution and civil action between the Professor and the Met.
Little sympathy on here I would wager. She looks a bit "Me too, woke".
Interesting story. As someone who was subjected to a vaguely similar ordeal by the police 20 years ago I've got a lot of sympathy for her and the fact that she fought this out for years and eventually won.
However, I can also see that it really isn't a good idea for members of the public to obstruct police actions. You can't ever know what you are getting in to.
Yes but there are some quite important details that the guardian have missed. Firstly, the guy that the police were searching actually had a knife on him. Secondly, after intervening in their operation to hand out her card, she engaged in 'passive resistance', forcing her to be carried to the van.
Wondering what the next Boris revelation might be. My guess is Gove hosted an acid house party in the rose garden? Boris dropped by, dropped an e, but thought it a work meeting. Such is the way with Gove.
I'll still believe it when he's gone. They should've had the VONC a week or two ago (or, rather, last year).
Edited extra bit: Starmer back out to 12.5 for next PM, Betfair.
The Meeks spreadsheet that someone linked to of every MP’s statement was quite revealing. Seems increasingly clear that the weight of the parliamentary party is awaiting the report not to see if it exonerates the PM or in the hope that something else comes along to save him, but so that it appears that due process has been followed. Many will be stung by the botched assassination job on T May and want to make sure this time they shoot to kill.
Speaking of T May, I can report she was door knocking in her constituency at the weekend. And not because of the local elections because there aren’t any there. Intriguing.
Perhaps she just wanted to hear hundreds of people saying 'Boris is a m***** f****** c***' to her?
I interact with Russians based in Moscow most weeks. They largely think the West is barmy and are overplaying not very much into a massive crisis. And they are incredulous at the idea that Putin will do anything deserving of wide ranging sanctions.
Not saying they are right of course. Just that it’s interesting how we are all a product of the informational narratives we consume (or that are fed to us).
Meanwhile I see Biden is upping the stakes with more troops in the Baltics. Or to view it another way, he is clearly showing Putin his hand that he can do whatever he likes in Ukraine but mustn’t touch existing NATO states.
Miserable times for some long suffering people ahead I think.
Russian state media has been running the narrative for months now, both that Western nations are provoking Russia and that Ukraine is Russian territory.
It’s a convenient narrative that gets away from a very poor Covid effort, and makes Putin seem like the rational man responding to the aggression of others, rather than being the agressor himself.
The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog. It is tempting to think of everything as a 'hitler annexing the sudetenland' moment, but every situation is unique.
My concern is that the western powers don't ultimately have the same level of resolve as the Russians; resulting in a blusterous arrival (possibly as a distraction from its own Covid related problems) followed by a panic driven, humiliating withdrawal - like Kabul 2021.
Looking at Russia; my feeling is that people in the UK don't want to know; they have progressively lost the narrative of post-war history over the past 3 decades and don't see what is at stake in Eastern Europe. Many decision makers in and outside government have spent their entire adult lives in a 'safe' western bubble, from the 1980's onwards. The sense of disinterest can be witnessed with the trashing of the centophah in 2020 and the indifference shown even by a supposedly conservative government. Experiences of war are dominated by Iraq and Afghanistan and popular narratives of the west being an aggressor.
I think that Finland have got it right regarding Putin, as they have for dealing with Russia over the past 70 plus years. I hope that they don't make the error of joining NATO.
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
There are ways of doing this while still doing a face to face interview.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
Talking of controlling matters, have you seen the story in the Guardian about Dr Konstancja Duff. Another humdinger of an arrest and strip search at the notorious Stoke Newington nick, oh and the subsequent failed prosecution and civil action between the Professor and the Met.
Little sympathy on here I would wager. She looks a bit "Me too, woke".
Interesting story. As someone who was subjected to a vaguely similar ordeal by the police 20 years ago I've got a lot of sympathy for her and the fact that she fought this out for years and eventually won.
However, I can also see that it really isn't a good idea for members of the public to obstruct police actions. You can't ever know what you are getting in to.
Yes but there are some quite important details that the guardian have missed. Firstly, the guy that the police were searching actually had a knife on him. Secondly, after intervening in their operation to hand out her card, she engaged in 'passive resistance', forcing her to be carried to the van.
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
There are ways of doing this while still doing a face to face interview.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
Talking of controlling matters, have you seen the story in the Guardian about Dr Konstancja Duff. Another humdinger of an arrest and strip search at the notorious Stoke Newington nick, oh and the subsequent failed prosecution and civil action between the Professor and the Met.
Little sympathy on here I would wager. She looks a bit "Me too, woke".
Interesting story. As someone who was subjected to a vaguely similar ordeal by the police 20 years ago I've got a lot of sympathy for her and the fact that she fought this out for years and eventually won.
However, I can also see that it really isn't a good idea for members of the public to obstruct police actions. You can't ever know what you are getting in to.
Yes but there are some quite important details that the guardian have missed. Firstly, the guy that the police were searching actually had a knife on him. Secondly, after intervening in their operation to hand out her card, she engaged in 'passive resistance', forcing her to be carried to the van.
I interact with Russians based in Moscow most weeks. They largely think the West is barmy and are overplaying not very much into a massive crisis. And they are incredulous at the idea that Putin will do anything deserving of wide ranging sanctions.
Not saying they are right of course. Just that it’s interesting how we are all a product of the informational narratives we consume (or that are fed to us).
Meanwhile I see Biden is upping the stakes with more troops in the Baltics. Or to view it another way, he is clearly showing Putin his hand that he can do whatever he likes in Ukraine but mustn’t touch existing NATO states.
Miserable times for some long suffering people ahead I think.
Russian state media has been running the narrative for months now, both that Western nations are provoking Russia and that Ukraine is Russian territory.
It’s a convenient narrative that gets away from a very poor Covid effort, and makes Putin seem like the rational man responding to the aggression of others, rather than being the agressor himself.
The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog. It is tempting to think of everything as a 'hitler annexing the sudetenland' moment, but every situation is unique.
My concern is that the western powers don't ultimately have the same level of resolve as the Russians; resulting in a blusterous arrival (possibly as a distraction from its own Covid related problems) followed by a panic driven, humiliating withdrawal - like Kabul 2021.
Looking at Russia; my feeling is that people in the UK don't want to know; they have progressively lost the narrative of post-war history over the past 3 decades and don't see what is at stake in Eastern Europe. Many decision makers in and outside government have spent their entire adult lives in a 'safe' western bubble, from the 1980's onwards. The sense of disinterest can be witnessed with the trashing of the centophah in 2020 and the indifference shown even by a supposedly conservative government. Experiences of war are dominated by Iraq and Afghanistan and popular narratives of the west being an aggressor.
I think that Finland have got it right regarding Putin, as they have for dealing with Russia over the past 70 plus years. I hope that they don't make the error of joining NATO.
It's also apparently tempting to think everything is Afghanistan redux. That's clearly not the case here.
And do the people in Russia 'want to know' ? Not that they will be asked.
The Cummings thing is literally just because he wants an undeniable paper trail of everything given to Sue Gray. Emails sent to her .gov email account will be logged even if he or she deletes them. Going to Whitehall to give the exact same information he's sent by email - even if he insisted on recording everything on a tape or something, which is basically what he's done here except much more complicated - will open him up to allegations he said things off the record to her before going into the meeting.
Of course. Sue Grey isn't Perry Mason. I couldn't understand why people were aghast Cummings wanted to conduct his interview by email. He seems to be the only one with his wits about him This is about facts not a dazzling courtroom drama with George Carmen.
The more we hear the more confident we can be that he knows exactly what he's doing. What's more he knows the people and practices of the people he's dealing with.
No chance of sweeping this little lot under the carpet however much the Sir Humphrys might want it otherwise
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
There are ways of doing this while still doing a face to face interview.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
Talking of controlling matters, have you seen the story in the Guardian about Dr Konstancja Duff. Another humdinger of an arrest and strip search at the notorious Stoke Newington nick, oh and the subsequent failed prosecution and civil action between the Professor and the Met.
Little sympathy on here I would wager. She looks a bit "Me too, woke".
Interesting story. As someone who was subjected to a vaguely similar ordeal by the police 20 years ago I've got a lot of sympathy for her and the fact that she fought this out for years and eventually won.
However, I can also see that it really isn't a good idea for members of the public to obstruct police actions. You can't ever know what you are getting in to.
Yes but there are some quite important details that the guardian have missed. Firstly, the guy that the police were searching actually had a knife on him. Secondly, after intervening in their operation to hand out her card, she engaged in 'passive resistance', forcing her to be carried to the van.
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
There are ways of doing this while still doing a face to face interview.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
Talking of controlling matters, have you seen the story in the Guardian about Dr Konstancja Duff. Another humdinger of an arrest and strip search at the notorious Stoke Newington nick, oh and the subsequent failed prosecution and civil action between the Professor and the Met.
Little sympathy on here I would wager. She looks a bit "Me too, woke".
Interesting story. As someone who was subjected to a vaguely similar ordeal by the police 20 years ago I've got a lot of sympathy for her and the fact that she fought this out for years and eventually won.
However, I can also see that it really isn't a good idea for members of the public to obstruct police actions. You can't ever know what you are getting in to.
Yes but there are some quite important details that the guardian have missed. Firstly, the guy that the police were searching actually had a knife on him. Secondly, after intervening in their operation to hand out her card, she engaged in 'passive resistance', forcing her to be carried to the van.
So, you think that justifies their misogyny and similar remarks?
No, I've never suggested the assault on her at the police station was justified; as will be clear from my earlier posts, I am sympathetic on this point and support her pursuing it to the conclusion it has reached. I did not have had the guts to fight it out the way she had after my own ordeal with the police, which I recounted last night; she seems to have spent 8 years defending herself through a prosecution and then fighting the system against unbelievable odds. My own conclusion was to just accept the conclusion that you don't trust the police and definetely don't mess with policing operations.
I'm not sure that misogyny is a big factor in this case. As I understand it, the people that put her through the humiliating ordeal were female police officers.
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
There are ways of doing this while still doing a face to face interview.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
Talking of controlling matters, have you seen the story in the Guardian about Dr Konstancja Duff. Another humdinger of an arrest and strip search at the notorious Stoke Newington nick, oh and the subsequent failed prosecution and civil action between the Professor and the Met.
Little sympathy on here I would wager. She looks a bit "Me too, woke".
Interesting story. As someone who was subjected to a vaguely similar ordeal by the police 20 years ago I've got a lot of sympathy for her and the fact that she fought this out for years and eventually won.
However, I can also see that it really isn't a good idea for members of the public to obstruct police actions. You can't ever know what you are getting in to.
Yes but there are some quite important details that the guardian have missed. Firstly, the guy that the police were searching actually had a knife on him. Secondly, after intervening in their operation to hand out her card, she engaged in 'passive resistance', forcing her to be carried to the van.
Without witnesses or recordings, I don't see how an investigation into this can proceed. What possible coroberation can there be?
Knowing this shower of shite there's probably an email saying 'Sack that Paki woman.'
And you rejoined this shower??
To try and ensure another a sensible Tory becomes leader, not another moonbat person.
So who of the candidates would you like?
Not quite the same question as who would you bet on, of course.
Hunt, Ellwood, Tugendhat, and Bell.
Nobody from this cabinet which in future will be spoken with the same disdain as the Vichy Government.
I don't think that I will be voting Tory again, at least not in the foreseeable future, but those would be a step in the right direction.
As a matter of interest, when was the last time you voted Tory at a general election?
2010
I have voted in every GE since 1983, this was the only Conservative vote.
Well at least you have not never voted Tory, albeit you did not vote Tory in 2015 and 2019 when the Tories won majorities
I've never voted Tory. Does that mean I'm cancelled?
No, though I think the closest thing we have on PB to a swing voter is BigG. Voted Labour for Blair in 1997 and 2001 and has voted Tory since but not keen on Boris
I have voted for 5 different parties at GE.
Con 1 Lib 1 SDP 1 Lib Dem 2 Green 2 Lab 3
Since 1983
Oh, what the hell:
Labour 1997 LD 2001 LD 2005 Tory 2010 Labour 2015 Tory 2017 Tory 2019
That strikes me as the sanest swing pattern ever. You are the swingierest sheep of all Sunil, we should anoint you with a bell around your neck.
Consistently voted for the Opposition in every election until the Brexit Referendum, since when he's consistently voted for the government. Interesting.
Parties gate is analogous to the expenses scandal.
There was and seems now is a blurring of the distinction between rules and acceptable behaviour. Every MP asked and was given permission for their expenses but the public was outraged.
There is no doubt there is a huge grey area around "No10" as a home/workplace. Add to that the fact that it is also the heart of government and we are where we are.
Not helped by Boris' evident disinclination to study the actual rules and the public having a why doesn't the PM go on official state visits via easyJet and take the president of Urumba to KFC moment.
There's no grey area. Social gatherings including food and drink were explicitly disallowed under the rules. Singing was also disallowed. Many people were fined under these two provisions of the rules.
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
There are ways of doing this while still doing a face to face interview.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
Talking of controlling matters, have you seen the story in the Guardian about Dr Konstancja Duff. Another humdinger of an arrest and strip search at the notorious Stoke Newington nick, oh and the subsequent failed prosecution and civil action between the Professor and the Met.
Little sympathy on here I would wager. She looks a bit "Me too, woke".
Interesting story. As someone who was subjected to a vaguely similar ordeal by the police 20 years ago I've got a lot of sympathy for her and the fact that she fought this out for years and eventually won.
However, I can also see that it really isn't a good idea for members of the public to obstruct police actions. You can't ever know what you are getting in to.
Yes but there are some quite important details that the guardian have missed. Firstly, the guy that the police were searching actually had a knife on him. Secondly, after intervening in their operation to hand out her card, she engaged in 'passive resistance', forcing her to be carried to the van.
So, you think that justifies their misogyny and similar remarks?
I'm as dismayed by their seeming to have been able to commit what looks a fairly serious assault without subsequent consequence.
And I'm not sure why they felt the need to detain her for "handing out a card"
Her prosecution was also unnecessary, if not malicious.
I can imagine the plod at the point of the arrest gave her the opportunity not to intervene and she chose to carry on. Aggravated plod, she is obstructing the police. From then on, going limp, not answering questions, the whole lot, is almost designed to piss them off. I’m not saying the police were in the right, but she surely didn’t help herself.
The Cummings thing is literally just because he wants an undeniable paper trail of everything given to Sue Gray. Emails sent to her .gov email account will be logged even if he or she deletes them. Going to Whitehall to give the exact same information he's sent by email - even if he insisted on recording everything on a tape or something, which is basically what he's done here except much more complicated - will open him up to allegations he said things off the record to her before going into the meeting.
Of course. Sue Grey isn't Perry Mason. I couldn't understand why people were aghast Cummings wanted to conduct his interview by email. He seems to be the only one with his wits about him This is about facts not a dazzling courtroom drama with George Carmen.
The more we hear the more confident we can be that he knows exactly what he's doing. What's more he knows the people and practices of the people he's dealing with.
No chance of sweeping this little lot under the carpet however much the Sir Humphrys might want it otherwise
AIUI from Ms Cyclefree's posts yesterday, unless Big Dom is solely passing over paperwork, such as copies of letters and emails, then he ought to be questioned. And even if it was only a matter of 'handovers' there should have been at least the opportunity for questions.
If you have children born between March and July, and you obey the rules, they haven't had a birthday party for almost three years now. That's why the latest allegation of a restrictions-busting birthday party in Downing Street particularly stings for some of us.
I interact with Russians based in Moscow most weeks. They largely think the West is barmy and are overplaying not very much into a massive crisis. And they are incredulous at the idea that Putin will do anything deserving of wide ranging sanctions.
Not saying they are right of course. Just that it’s interesting how we are all a product of the informational narratives we consume (or that are fed to us).
Meanwhile I see Biden is upping the stakes with more troops in the Baltics. Or to view it another way, he is clearly showing Putin his hand that he can do whatever he likes in Ukraine but mustn’t touch existing NATO states.
Miserable times for some long suffering people ahead I think.
Russian state media has been running the narrative for months now, both that Western nations are provoking Russia and that Ukraine is Russian territory.
It’s a convenient narrative that gets away from a very poor Covid effort, and makes Putin seem like the rational man responding to the aggression of others, rather than being the agressor himself.
In recent years Russians have rediscovered how to read the propaganda put out by Putin in the same way as they read Soviet ptopaganda. Although it is hard to tell, given that all free organizational are more or less banned, there is some evidence that Navalny's revelations of deep corruption by Putin and his cronies is well known and widely believed. Putin seems to be seeking a diversion from his own unpopularity, but in fact a full scale war, if it went badly could be the last straw. It is a pretty desperate throw, and that is why the situation is do dangerous.
I remain totally un-outraged by partygate. However, it's clear I am in a small minority. For me, this is an opportunity for Boris to be moved on - his legacy is assured, and now we should bring in a more businesslike PM and leader of the Tory Party.
Presumably the lying doesn't bother you either?
Lying should be blamed on Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell who introduced it to politics. Do keep up.
Parties gate is analogous to the expenses scandal.
There was and seems now is a blurring of the distinction between rules and acceptable behaviour. Every MP asked and was given permission for their expenses but the public was outraged.
There is no doubt there is a huge grey area around "No10" as a home/workplace. Add to that the fact that it is also the heart of government and we are where we are.
Not helped by Boris' evident disinclination to study the actual rules and the public having a why doesn't the PM go on official state visits via easyJet and take the president of Urumba to KFC moment.
There's no grey area. Social gatherings including food and drink were explicitly disallowed under the rules. Singing was also disallowed. Many people were fined under these two provisions of the rules.
Then SKS should have been fined also for having a drink at that constituency office.
No.10 is a special case. It runs the country and, thinking shots of the White House in The West Wing, is a home and an office intertwined. It is carrying out what I would have no hesitation in calling essential services, all of it, and doesn't and shouldn't follow *all* the rules that Joe's Kebab House or even KPMG follows.
My father in law’s 80th and final birthday was done over FaceTime. There were tears. Birthday parties were definitely not allowed.
I hope you have had the opportunity since to have many and happy parties with him. But was your father running the country at the time from his home/office.
The Cummings thing is literally just because he wants an undeniable paper trail of everything given to Sue Gray. Emails sent to her .gov email account will be logged even if he or she deletes them. Going to Whitehall to give the exact same information he's sent by email - even if he insisted on recording everything on a tape or something, which is basically what he's done here except much more complicated - will open him up to allegations he said things off the record to her before going into the meeting.
Of course. Sue Grey isn't Perry Mason. I couldn't understand why people were aghast Cummings wanted to conduct his interview by email. He seems to be the only one with his wits about him This is about facts not a dazzling courtroom drama with George Carmen.
The more we hear the more confident we can be that he knows exactly what he's doing. What's more he knows the people and practices of the people he's dealing with.
No chance of sweeping this little lot under the carpet however much the Sir Humphrys might want it otherwise
AIUI from Ms Cyclefree's posts yesterday, unless Big Dom is solely passing over paperwork, such as copies of letters and emails, then he ought to be questioned. And even if it was only a matter of 'handovers' there should have been at least the opportunity for questions.
Remember Mrs Gray isn’t an independent person her boss is Boris Johnson Cyclefree be;wives that doesn’t matter because in her world it didn’t but elsewhere nope it very much does.
I wouldn’t be answering anything verbally because I would want to double check my answers to ensure there was no ambiguity that could be used.
If you have children born between March and July, and you obey the rules, they haven't had a birthday party for almost three years now. That's why the latest allegation of a restrictions-busting birthday party in Downing Street particularly stings for some of us.
Not as bad as the European markets including London. But, then, they are not facing the largest war since Gulf War 1 on their doorstep with millions of refugees fleeing into western Europe. are they?
But the UK is obsessed about parties
That is as stupid as saying the Huhne case was just about speeding. You may not mind being governed by a liar, but there are valid objections to it
Oh FFS. I suppose he can genuinely say that he did not know about this party because it was a surprise. And, in the real world you have 30 people working in the cabinet room for an hour or two and then his wife brings in a cake. I am struggling to see the risk here. But the drip, drip, drip is just making him look ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous. But the man we must assume is behind it is refusing to be interviewed and is playing his own games with the investigation and with us.
And this is making me really annoyed. The investigation is not there to dance to the tune of Cummings or anyone else. It's not there so he can have his vendettas against the PM or his wife or anyone else. It's not there to be held hostage to his vanity and sense of self-entitlement.
I'd be half inclined to call a halt to it and say that, in order to be fair to all concerned, she's referring the evidence collected to the police so that they can take it further as they have powers to obtain evidence and interviews she does not have.
Where there is sufficient evidence for disciplinary proceedings short of criminal action she will assist the relevant HR departments in the normal way.
Armchair expertise. in the real world, Gray has no power to compel witnesses; there is no protocol which says that oral evidence is to be preferred to written; as far as we know (and we have only heard from Cummings) she has come to an agreement with him that his evidence should be written; should that not be the case, she will no doubt say so in her report.
As she can only take statements (not have exams in chief/cross exams by Counsel) the written vs oral distinction is absolutely irrelevant here.
Armchair expertise?
You're describing yourself I imagine.
Because I'm afraid - and at the risk of being called patronising again and on the basis of my experience in the real world of investigations - on this topic you give the impression you have no idea what you are talking about. Investigations are not like Commercial Court litigation, as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible for a good trained investigator to do an interview without the need for examination in chief, cross-examination etc, it is not good practice to accept written evidence without an interview and if someone external is prepared to co-operate they should do so properly.
Cummings cannot be compelled. Though it would be interesting to see whether he is under any ongoing contractual obligation to assist his former employer under the terms of his departure, a clause I have often seen in departure agreements. But he can be criticised for the way he is responding. And I do. He is undermining the investigation though doubtless she is doing her best given the terms of reference and the pressure she will be under.
If I was being asked to support this investigation after leaving my reaction would be the same as Mr Cummings, I would want a paper trail to ensure I wasn’t intentional misinterpreted
There are ways of doing this while still doing a face to face interview.
The problem here is that Cummings appears to want to control matters. He can't. And he shouldn't be allowed to.
Talking of controlling matters, have you seen the story in the Guardian about Dr Konstancja Duff. Another humdinger of an arrest and strip search at the notorious Stoke Newington nick, oh and the subsequent failed prosecution and civil action between the Professor and the Met.
Little sympathy on here I would wager. She looks a bit "Me too, woke".
Interesting story. As someone who was subjected to a vaguely similar ordeal by the police 20 years ago I've got a lot of sympathy for her and the fact that she fought this out for years and eventually won.
However, I can also see that it really isn't a good idea for members of the public to obstruct police actions. You can't ever know what you are getting in to.
Yes but there are some quite important details that the guardian have missed. Firstly, the guy that the police were searching actually had a knife on him. Secondly, after intervening in their operation to hand out her card, she engaged in 'passive resistance', forcing her to be carried to the van.
So, you think that justifies their misogyny and similar remarks?
I'm as dismayed by their seeming to have been able to commit what looks a fairly serious assault without subsequent consequence.
And I'm not sure why they felt the need to detain her for "handing out a card"
Her prosecution was also unnecessary, if not malicious.
I can imagine the plod at the point of the arrest gave her the opportunity not to intervene and she chose to carry on. Aggravated plod, she is obstructing the police. From then on, going limp, not answering questions, the whole lot, is almost designed to piss them off. I’m not saying the police were in the right, but she surely didn’t help herself.
I can imagine all sorts of things, but the fact is that it's taken the police nearly a decade to admit they were in the wrong. Bad decisions by individual officers are inevitable from time to time. A culture of denial is not.
I interact with Russians based in Moscow most weeks. They largely think the West is barmy and are overplaying not very much into a massive crisis. And they are incredulous at the idea that Putin will do anything deserving of wide ranging sanctions.
Not saying they are right of course. Just that it’s interesting how we are all a product of the informational narratives we consume (or that are fed to us).
Meanwhile I see Biden is upping the stakes with more troops in the Baltics. Or to view it another way, he is clearly showing Putin his hand that he can do whatever he likes in Ukraine but mustn’t touch existing NATO states.
Miserable times for some long suffering people ahead I think.
Russian state media has been running the narrative for months now, both that Western nations are provoking Russia and that Ukraine is Russian territory.
It’s a convenient narrative that gets away from a very poor Covid effort, and makes Putin seem like the rational man responding to the aggression of others, rather than being the agressor himself.
In recent years Russians have rediscovered how to read the propaganda put out by Putin in the same way as they read Soviet ptopaganda. Although it is hard to tell, given that all free organizational are more or less banned, there is some evidence that Navalny's revelations of deep corruption by Putin and his cronies is well known and widely believed. Putin seems to be seeking a diversion from his own unpopularity, but in fact a full scale war, if it went badly could be the last straw. It is a pretty desperate throw, and that is why the situation is do dangerous.
Yes, I see it this way too. Like General Galtieri he is using it to shore up his domestic position.
That said, for obvious historic reasons Russians are rather sensitive to their Western border having troops of a foreign alliance based there.
I think too that the Russian military-industrial complex is very politically powerful. Having had a massive rearmament programme over recent years it is looking for an external threat to justify itself. East Ukraine is ideal for their sort of combined arms warfare.
It is a very risky situation that could easily go wrong.
Parties gate is analogous to the expenses scandal.
There was and seems now is a blurring of the distinction between rules and acceptable behaviour. Every MP asked and was given permission for their expenses but the public was outraged.
There is no doubt there is a huge grey area around "No10" as a home/workplace. Add to that the fact that it is also the heart of government and we are where we are.
Not helped by Boris' evident disinclination to study the actual rules and the public having a why doesn't the PM go on official state visits via easyJet and take the president of Urumba to KFC moment.
There's no grey area. Social gatherings including food and drink were explicitly disallowed under the rules. Singing was also disallowed. Many people were fined under these two provisions of the rules.
Then SKS should have been fined also for having a drink at that constituency office.
No.10 is a special case. It runs the country and, thinking shots of the White House in The West Wing, is a home and an office intertwined. It is carrying out what I would have no hesitation in calling essential services, all of it, and doesn't and shouldn't follow *all* the rules that Joe's Kebab House or even KPMG follows.
This is clearly nonsense. People from all over the building, and apparently Whitehall, reassembled in one room, for the clear purpose of a gathering that was explicitly disallowed under the rules, including food, drink and singing, for a social, rather than work reason. Added to that, these were the people *making the rules*, not Keir Starmer and his single lunchtime beer.
Just caught up with the Minister actually resigning at the Dispatch Box - never seen that before, amazing, right down to the curt "Goodbye". When was the last time that happened?
My father in law’s 80th and final birthday was done over FaceTime. There were tears. Birthday parties were definitely not allowed.
I hope you have had the opportunity since to have many and happy parties with him. But was your father running the country at the time from his home/office.
I'm fine with the PM running the country.
I'm not fine with the PM breaking his own laws. Or setting laws upon us he didn't think it was reasonable to follow himself.
U.K Chancellor Rishi Sunak is on track for a windfall of around £10 billion this year as borrowing figures for the first nine months came in well below official forecasts
Does Sunak have a clue what he's doing? Why do we assume a hedge fund manager is fiscally competent? They're hardly known for prudence.
I do wonder what personal tax receipts will be this month, covering the period of the 2 main lockdowns. Certainly my own payment is way down for my non salaried income.
I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that spiralling Gov't debt is a recipe for inflation which in the 1970's was the curse of the age.
Just because we haven't experienced much of it in recent years doesn't mean it cannot return. Inflation is a blight on everyone, with dire knock-on effects right across the economy.
I simply cannot believe that we have this high tax, high spend policy in place.
Let's be honest and frank: this Conservative Government is not a Conservative government.
The Cummings thing is literally just because he wants an undeniable paper trail of everything given to Sue Gray. Emails sent to her .gov email account will be logged even if he or she deletes them. Going to Whitehall to give the exact same information he's sent by email - even if he insisted on recording everything on a tape or something, which is basically what he's done here except much more complicated - will open him up to allegations he said things off the record to her before going into the meeting.
Of course. Sue Grey isn't Perry Mason. I couldn't understand why people were aghast Cummings wanted to conduct his interview by email. He seems to be the only one with his wits about him This is about facts not a dazzling courtroom drama with George Carmen.
The more we hear the more confident we can be that he knows exactly what he's doing. What's more he knows the people and practices of the people he's dealing with.
No chance of sweeping this little lot under the carpet however much the Sir Humphrys might want it otherwise
AIUI from Ms Cyclefree's posts yesterday, unless Big Dom is solely passing over paperwork, such as copies of letters and emails, then he ought to be questioned. And even if it was only a matter of 'handovers' there should have been at least the opportunity for questions.
Remember Mrs Gray isn’t an independent person her boss is Boris Johnson Cyclefree be;wives that doesn’t matter because in her world it didn’t but elsewhere nope it very much does.
I wouldn’t be answering anything verbally because I would want to double check my answers to ensure there was no ambiguity that could be used.
Both fair points, of course. I'm still somewhat surprised at the 'weight' put on Ms Gray, and equally puzzled as to her career path. There's something we're not being told.
Parties gate is analogous to the expenses scandal.
There was and seems now is a blurring of the distinction between rules and acceptable behaviour. Every MP asked and was given permission for their expenses but the public was outraged.
There is no doubt there is a huge grey area around "No10" as a home/workplace. Add to that the fact that it is also the heart of government and we are where we are.
Not helped by Boris' evident disinclination to study the actual rules and the public having a why doesn't the PM go on official state visits via easyJet and take the president of Urumba to KFC moment.
There's no grey area. Social gatherings including food and drink were explicitly disallowed under the rules. Singing was also disallowed. Many people were fined under these two provisions of the rules.
Then SKS should have been fined also for having a drink at that constituency office.
No.10 is a special case. It runs the country and, thinking shots of the White House in The West Wing, is a home and an office intertwined. It is carrying out what I would have no hesitation in calling essential services, all of it, and doesn't and shouldn't follow *all* the rules that Joe's Kebab House or even KPMG follows.
This is clearly nonsense. People from all over the building, and apparently Whitehal, reassembled in one room, for the clear purpose of a gathering that was explicitly disallowed under the rules, including food, drink and singing for a social, rather than work reason. Added to that, these were the people *making the rules*, not Keir Starmer and his lunchtime beer .
Absurd.
There are subtleties to this. Gathering a disparate set of people in a room specifically to sing Happy Birthday and have cake would be a breach.
Having the cake cut, divided out and then conducting cabinet (or another meeting with a suitable invite list for the business at hand) would be a much greater area and potentially OK.
Again, there were other people in shot on the SKS photo, but I'm not convinced he was mixing rather than having lunch by a desk. If he'd been sitting it would have been better. The fact we only seem to have a single shot of this activity, when multiple shots would have been taken through that window, suggests to me that it wasn't that incriminating and probably bears out SKSs explanation.
But, I'm open to new facts and interpretation of exactly what was going on in each case relative to what the rules were at the time - and the two events were at different times.
I understand where TOPPING is trying to go but there's a difference between something is allowed, but needs to be scaled up in Number 10 as appropriate ... And saying something is completely verbotten, then Number 10 still doing it anyway.
People recently trying to attack Liz Truss for her (entirely legal) spending while taking the US Trade Delegation for dinner was absurd. You don't take the US Trade Delegation out for KFC.
But saying that parties are banned, no it's, no buts, then having them anyway ... That's a different matter.
Parties gate is analogous to the expenses scandal.
There was and seems now is a blurring of the distinction between rules and acceptable behaviour. Every MP asked and was given permission for their expenses but the public was outraged.
There is no doubt there is a huge grey area around "No10" as a home/workplace. Add to that the fact that it is also the heart of government and we are where we are.
Not helped by Boris' evident disinclination to study the actual rules and the public having a why doesn't the PM go on official state visits via easyJet and take the president of Urumba to KFC moment.
There's no grey area. Social gatherings including food and drink were explicitly disallowed under the rules. Singing was also disallowed. Many people were fined under these two provisions of the rules.
Then SKS should have been fined also for having a drink at that constituency office.
No.10 is a special case. It runs the country and, thinking shots of the White House in The West Wing, is a home and an office intertwined. It is carrying out what I would have no hesitation in calling essential services, all of it, and doesn't and shouldn't follow *all* the rules that Joe's Kebab House or even KPMG follows.
This is clearly nonsense. People from all over the building, and apparently Whitehal, reassembled in one room, for the clear purpose of a gathering that was explicitly disallowed under the rules, including food, drink and singing for a social, rather than work reason. Added to that, these were the people *making the rules*, not Keir Starmer and his lunchtime beer .
Absurd.
There are subtleties to this. Gathering a disparate set of people in a room specifically to sing Happy Birthday and have cake would be a breach.
Having the cake cut, divided out and then conducting cabinet (or another meeting with a suitable invite list for the business at hand) would be a much greater area and potentially OK.
Again, there were other people in shot on the SKS photo, but I'm not convinced he was mixing rather than having lunch by a desk. If he'd been sitting it would have been better. The fact we only seem to have a single shot of this activity, when multiple shots would have been taken through that window, suggests to me that it wasn't that incriminating and probably bears out SKSs explanation.
But, I'm open to new facts and interpretation of exactly what was going on in each case relative to what the rules were at the time - and the two events were at different times.
But there's also the context. Johnson seems to have been involved in and tolerated multiple gatherings, throughout lockdown. What this indicates is his underlying attitude. There's no such allegations or information against Starmer, and again, judging by his general demeanor and leadership style, that's no surprise, either.
Comments
Allegra is the killer image. One that the poor woman will have to endure for a long time to come and in many ways she was the most blameless of all of them. Just collateral damage working for a bunch of Hooray Henrys
Sue_Grey_Report.docx
Sue_Grey_Report_v2.docx
Sue_Grey_Report_v3.docx
Sue_Grey_Report_REDRAFT.docx
Sue_Grey_Report_REDRAFT_DCint.docx
Sue_Grey_Report_REDRAFT_DCint2.docx
Sue_Grey_Report_FIN.docx
Sue_Grey_Report_FIN2.docx
Sue_Grey_Report_NEW.docx
Sue_Grey_Report_FFS.docx
This is the opposite: It's not that it's against the rules, it's that regardless of what the rules are, it's an incredibly stupid thing to be doing.
You are our bellweather Sunil, where are you leading us next if the election was tomorrow 🙂
Politically dangerous, absolutely, so many people involved, it was never going to not leak.
Give us a clue.....
Take care.
Even after all that, I think that in almost all cases police should be left to do their work. They are the product of a certain adversarial justice system and keep us safe. I would rather have the police force that we have than policing by philosophy professors who want to abolish the police. We've seen exactly where that leads in the USA, in 2020. Overall it is not a good idea to intervene whilst they are apprehending someone armed with a knife.
Thought He turned Green as the CPGB was packing up - He was one of the nicest blokes I have ever met
But I agree it's increasingly unclear why her head had to roll while others remain attached. I mean, she was laughing at how indefensible the position was for a press secretary, and she was 100% right.
It's illuminating that the Scandi TV crime series like The Killing have sexed-up subtitles in English, because British audiences don't think police are credible unless they go round swearing at the suspects.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/24/minister-resigns-in-protest-at-handling-of-fraudulent-covid-loans
Come to think of it, from what we know now Loonie and Conservative had more in common with each other in 2019 than first met the eye.
Put head on pillow. Couldn’t sleep. There is something odd about Cummings not willing to talk to Sue Gray. I can’t quite put my finger on it. This is the peculiar way he explained it.
“It's reported everywhere that I am seeing Sue Gray today. This is wrong. I am not seeing/talking to her. Why? Since leaving government I've tried to help with a few things, some directly and some very quietly. One such thing involved discussing the security services. Only me and two officials knew what I said. They briefed the PM. Within minutes, one of the lobby infamous for being a stooge was calling the Cabinet Office making claims about MI5 and me. The officials apologised and said, reasonably, the system doesn't work when a PM behaves like this. So when SG asked to speak to me I emailed to the effect: if we speak the PM will invent nonsense and spin it to the media and you and I will both have problems, let's keep everything in writing, therefore he cannot invent things I've supposedly said to you, there is only a written record, this makes both our lives easier. She agreed. So I have answered questions in writing and will answer further questions in writing if she wants. But I will not speak and therefore provide the PM with more chances to lie and confuse everybody."
First thing. The anecdote example given doesn’t explain at all the need for writing being better than verbals, does it? He was bullish last week about swearing on oath - has he had any contact with anyone since to shake him up a bit?
Second thing. Reading between the lines where he himself takes us back in time, he spoke to security, they shared with PM, PM shared it with friendly contact in lobby (to smear him?) - have the security people had a suspicion about Cummings, some sort of skeleton in his closet his political enemies can use? Cummings spent three years in Russia from 1994 to 1997 after he graduated from Oxford, that would be a post communist Russia, I don’t know at all how he was helping out though he is not without skills, but did he make good relationships with any figures in Russian politics, and got some help back when heading leave campaign because of that - is that what security, largely pro remain, maybe irked about, as they feel Russian help was interference or cheating?
What do you think? Weird isn’t it, if things not weird enough! Are Russians involved in Partygate? If you consider the timing? Maybe it’s not Norman leaking but Tatiana of the SMERSH Spy Ninjas? 😲
I feel sorry for our security authorities a bit - there’s allegations that money has flowed into British politics from the highly organised and sneaky Russians - meanwhile there’s politicians from all party’s who love a drink, money, and sex - and poor security forces have to keep our democracy out of trouble and our politics and elections as clean as possible ☹️
Just been told to put ******* pad down as ******* been on it all day
But I might be on to something ☹️
£5 billion at the maximum £50k per loan is 100k loans out of ~1.5 million, or about 7%. If that's the loss rate, that's unsurprising given they were dishing out £50k loans left right and centre in the middle of a pandemic.
My business has a bounceback loan. When I bought it, my accountant was quite surprised that the previous owners wanted to do a share sale - apparently a lot of unscrupulous types have been selling business as assets sales, running off with the loot then busting the old company complete with its unsecured debt - apparently doing this with a bounceback loan is pretty much consequence free.
As another example, the banks are responsible for recovery of some categories if fraud, but have zero incentive to go to the effort, since they receive 100% refund from the government regardless.
At the Lagrange points that orbit is modified by the pull of earth’s gravity to keep it in a permanent stable position relative to earth.
But some of the Lagrange points are not quite stable gravitationally, and L2 is one of those.
Wikipedia:
Although the L1, L2, and L3 points are nominally unstable, there are quasi-stable periodic orbits called halo orbits around these points in a three-body system. A full n-body dynamical system such as the Solar System does not contain these periodic orbits, but does contain quasi-periodic (i.e. bounded but not precisely repeating) orbits following Lissajous-curve trajectories. These quasi-periodic Lissajous orbits are what most of Lagrangian-point space missions have used until now. Although they are not perfectly stable, a modest effort of station keeping keeps a spacecraft in a desired Lissajous orbit for a long time.
So the ‘orbit’ around a Lagrange point is actually shorthand for this ‘halo orbit’.
Read Agnew’s speech at the end of which he resigns.
This would and should be a big story, but the media are still all lapping up the “revelation” that the PM’s wife bought a cake to the office on his birthday.
Clearly though, these were just for the little people, and any contract between the governed and the government doesn't matter.
Fraud prevention is orders of magnitude less costly than following up and prosecuting once it has happened. Ditto recovery of the money.
As is evidenced by the police for many years being able to investigate only a minute percentage of reported fraud.
It’s one thing taking cash and producing something crap, it’s quite another to take the cash and produce nothing at all!
This is about lies and laws, not cake.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00128-0
… No spacecraft are located precisely at the L2 point, because it is gravitationally unstable. “We never actually get to L2 — we get near it,” Richon says. Webb travels along an ellipse with a semimajor axis (the maximum distance between the spacecraft and L2) that ranges between 250,000 and 832,000 kilometres. Webb does not pass into the Moon’s shadow, allowing its solar panels to remain fully charged and its antennas to communicate constantly with Earth.
To stay in this orbit, Webb needs to make small adjustments about once every three weeks, burning its thrusters to keep it looping around L2. Otherwise, the mission would drift off into interplanetary space. If nothing goes wrong, Webb’s lifetime will be dictated by when it runs out of the fuel it carries to keep it in position around L2...
Today's in 3.
Not saying they are right of course. Just that it’s interesting how we are all a product of the informational narratives we consume (or that are fed to us).
Meanwhile I see Biden is upping the stakes with more troops in the Baltics. Or to view it another way, he is clearly showing Putin his hand that he can do whatever he likes in Ukraine but mustn’t touch existing NATO states.
Miserable times for some long suffering people ahead I think.
It’s a convenient narrative that gets away from a very poor Covid effort, and makes Putin seem like the rational man responding to the aggression of others, rather than being the agressor himself.
I'll still believe it when he's gone. They should've had the VONC a week or two ago (or, rather, last year).
Edited extra bit: Starmer back out to 12.5 for next PM, Betfair.
Do we expect Sue Gray to ever complete her report? Or, if she does, for anything ever to be published. PM's questions tomorrow may well be dominated by the Ukraine situation.
And some resentment about these confectionaries people ate at various parties too.
Speaking of T May, I can report she was door knocking in her constituency at the weekend. And not because of the local elections because there aren’t any there. Intriguing.
There was and seems now is a blurring of the distinction between rules and acceptable behaviour. Every MP asked and was given permission for their expenses but the public was outraged.
There is no doubt there is a huge grey area around "No10" as a home/workplace. Add to that the fact that it is also the heart of government and we are where we are.
Not helped by Boris' evident disinclination to study the actual rules and the public having a why doesn't the PM go on official state visits via easyJet and take the president of Urumba to KFC moment.
Edit. Or about in the town.
Unlikely.
My concern is that the western powers don't ultimately have the same level of resolve as the Russians; resulting in a blusterous arrival (possibly as a distraction from its own Covid related problems) followed by a panic driven, humiliating withdrawal - like Kabul 2021.
Looking at Russia; my feeling is that people in the UK don't want to know; they have progressively lost the narrative of post-war history over the past 3 decades and don't see what is at stake in Eastern Europe. Many decision makers in and outside government have spent their entire adult lives in a 'safe' western bubble, from the 1980's onwards. The sense of disinterest can be witnessed with the trashing of the centophah in 2020 and the indifference shown even by a supposedly conservative government. Experiences of war are dominated by Iraq and Afghanistan and popular narratives of the west being an aggressor.
I think that Finland have got it right regarding Putin, as they have for dealing with Russia over the past 70 plus years. I hope that they don't make the error of joining NATO.
And do the people in Russia 'want to know' ?
Not that they will be asked.
The more we hear the more confident we can be that he knows exactly what he's doing. What's more he knows the people and practices of the people he's dealing with.
No chance of sweeping this little lot under the carpet however much the Sir Humphrys might want it otherwise
I'm not sure that misogyny is a big factor in this case. As I understand it, the people that put her through the humiliating ordeal were female police officers.
I’m not saying the police were in the right, but she surely didn’t help herself.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1485705590420742144?s=21
No.10 is a special case. It runs the country and, thinking shots of the White House in The West Wing, is a home and an office intertwined. It is carrying out what I would have no hesitation in calling essential services, all of it, and doesn't and shouldn't follow *all* the rules that Joe's Kebab House or even KPMG follows.
I wouldn’t be answering anything verbally because I would want to double check my answers to ensure there was no ambiguity that could be used.
Our eldest was born end of March and is currently in Year 3 and we are planning her party at the minute. Her last party was when she was in Reception.
Bad decisions by individual officers are inevitable from time to time. A culture of denial is not.
That said, for obvious historic reasons Russians are rather sensitive to their Western border having troops of a foreign alliance based there.
I think too that the Russian military-industrial complex is very politically powerful. Having had a massive rearmament programme over recent years it is looking for an external threat to justify itself. East Ukraine is ideal for their sort of combined arms warfare.
It is a very risky situation that could easily go wrong.
Absurd, and corrosive to public trust.
https://news.sky.com/story/surging-inflation-pushes-cost-of-servicing-govt-debt-to-december-record-of-8-1bn-12524749
Does Sunak have a clue what he's doing? Why do we assume a hedge fund manager is fiscally competent? They're hardly known for prudence.
I'm not fine with the PM breaking his own laws. Or setting laws upon us he didn't think it was reasonable to follow himself.
https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1485883754258345985?s=20
Just because we haven't experienced much of it in recent years doesn't mean it cannot return. Inflation is a blight on everyone, with dire knock-on effects right across the economy.
I simply cannot believe that we have this high tax, high spend policy in place.
Let's be honest and frank: this Conservative Government is not a Conservative government.
There's something we're not being told.
Having the cake cut, divided out and then conducting cabinet (or another meeting with a suitable invite list for the business at hand) would be a much greater area and potentially OK.
Again, there were other people in shot on the SKS photo, but I'm not convinced he was mixing rather than having lunch by a desk. If he'd been sitting it would have been better. The fact we only seem to have a single shot of this activity, when multiple shots would have been taken through that window, suggests to me that it wasn't that incriminating and probably bears out SKSs explanation.
But, I'm open to new facts and interpretation of exactly what was going on in each case relative to what the rules were at the time - and the two events were at different times.
People recently trying to attack Liz Truss for her (entirely legal) spending while taking the US Trade Delegation for dinner was absurd. You don't take the US Trade Delegation out for KFC.
But saying that parties are banned, no it's, no buts, then having them anyway ... That's a different matter.