This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
When the government practice open corruption and ask no questions tenders with no penalty clauses for non-delivery, why should we expect them to run a proper legal system? Where is the benefit?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
However, you fail to remember where we were in April/May last year. We needed PPE. In this case - as in war - the government had to do whatever it could to get PPE. It did.
According to the article below, the government had 8,000 offers from suppliers of PPE. That is a massive number, when decisions needed making immediately, sometimes to the day, or the kit would not be got. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52369223
Here's a sad truth for you: Labour under Starmer would have done exactly the same thing, because not to do so would have been a grossly wrong.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
That's the issue here but again it's hidden alongside other issues so people don't focus on the important one.
In fact this is an incredibly obvious playbook - we get given the complete picture (PPE, BBL fraud) and then when people pick up the real fixable problems that demonstrate a real screw up that they were responsible flaw they change the conversation to a different issue that was revealed at the same time.
PPE has - mates without experience allowed to purchase anything at vast expense, expensive proper PPE purchased when supply was less than demand and fraud. BBL has - clearly fraudulent loans (companies created after the scheme began), dodgy loans and failed firms.
In both cases there is a clear area that could be investigated but it can't be because other issues are used to hide and sidetrack from the outright fraud.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
The government got the PPE. Your approach would not have got it.
(As for Labour not letting their mates get advantage; the history of Labour rather goes against this.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
I don't see points you have made that need to be addressed. You are not a fan of this government, neither am I. You are making claims about what Labour would have done - I'm not a supporter of theirs either so why do I have to answer straw man claims against them?
The contract piece is simple. We will pay you £107m (a contract value seemingly used a lot), you will deliver the contract. Who you purchase supplies from to fulfil the contract is not our business (and we know that they won't have paid £107m). Non-delivery of the contract will trigger repayment by you.
Thats it. The contract is between the government and PPECo. When PPE co supplies crap, they get asked to repay. If they can't repay then there are standard procedures for such things. We didn't even try - and these aren't all companies that were created solely for this and wound up.
You say "small in the scheme of things". Sure - £107m with no questions asked is small change for the government. So is it ok for them to hand £107m to a friend for nothing? Why not do it again - what does it matter?
This is very literally the open corruption I am referring to. Not the procurement of PPE. The way that they handed vast sums of cash to the right people and did not expect or care whether anything was supplied.
Russia's Deputy UN Ambassador, Dmitry Polyanskiy, never a diplomat to hold back, tells Sky News: "There is always room for diplomacy, but frankly, we don't trust British diplomacy. I think in recent years, British diplomacy has shown that it is absolutely worthless. https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1488798946868842502
I still trust Britain over his shithole regime.
That cashes out as I still trust Boris and Liz over his shithole regime. Sure about that?
Yes. 100% certain. I trust Boris Johnson more than Vladimir Putin.
I do not know enough about the criminal justice system in England to comment in detail but the consequences for trials in Scotland of Covid have been severe. So many court days have been lost. The last trial I was set to do, where the complainers and the accused had been waiting 2 years for the case to come to trial, collapsed before the first witness was in the box because the principal complainer had come down with Covid. Trials with multiple accused have been impossible for the last 2 years, they simply require too many people in the same room.
In Scotland the High Court and the Sheriff court have used cinemas as Jury centres keeping juries remote from the court and able to maintain social distancing. In every trial this has added at least a day to the case because the first day is used selecting the jury who then have to attend the Jury centre the following morning. Almost every trial I have done in this period has had technical problems with the connection between the centre and the court. This becomes inevitable if the witness is also giving evidence remotely, which is often the case in sex trials.
The system is trying hard. We are running 19 High Court trial courts at once. This is unprecedented. I was talked into taking on another one yesterday due to start on the 16th. Bodies for both the defence and prosecution are quite hard to find. Defence counsel are racing from trial to trial and the system is having to accomodate them, recognising the importance of their role.
At the less serious end there was nearly 18 months with no trials except for those in custody. The processing capacity of JP and Sheriff courts have been massively reduced by the Covid regulations which limit the number of people allowed in the building at any one time, inevitably causing down time where something comes to an end prematurely and where witnesses have to be timetabled. It is really hard to get through the business in circumstances like that.
I mention all of this because I am not really convinced that the delays in matters coming to trial are being caused by the reasons @Cyclefree says. The mass departure of young criminal barristers and experienced solicitors capable of preparing a case because they simply cannot make a living on ridiculous legal aid rates will certainly be having an effect. But I would be astonished if the lack of court rooms was the problem.
As in so many other areas of life we need to get back to normal with the restrictions removed. And then we need to catch up the backlog. Its going to be a hell of a slog.
Covid has caused real problems in the criminal justice system. But it was on its knees before that and so the measures needed by Covid have exacerbated problems.
The cuts to legal aid, the inept privatisation of the probation service (which had to be reversed), the disclosure failures which harmed so many rape trials, the cuts to sitting hours, the budget cuts - all of these happened before Covid.
The failure in the police were not caused by Covid.
The failure in local authorities over child sexual abuse were not caused by Covid.
Covid will be used as an excuse for all sorts of failings. It will have played a part but its part will be hugely exaggerated and, if we let the government get away with it, it will be used as an all-purpose excuse for all sorts of failings and problems which are in reality down to deliberate decisions by government ministers.
As I say I am not in a position to comment in detail on the English situation but I have read many articles about junior barristers simply leaving the profession because they cannot make ends meet. We have seen the same effect in Scotland where legal aid rates for criminal work have not been increased since 1991.
I'm seriously surprised we have anything that looks like a legal system for criminal work - the pay is utterly crap...
Not at the top end. Criminal QCs earn about £250,000 a year ie more than the PM and comfortably in the top 1% of earners.
However junior criminal barristers starting out often earn little more than minimum wage, criminal solicitors not much more, it is pay at the lower end that needs addressing
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Boris Johnson’s latest effort to get the British public’s attention back onto his policy plans drowned out by more reports of lockdown parties at 10 Downing Street https://trib.al/5y2ASIl
The fact is every minister is now under sustained questioning by the media over partygate every day and it is clearly interfering with everything and the conservative mps just have to act
Boris Johnson’s latest effort to get the British public’s attention back onto his policy plans drowned out by more reports of lockdown parties at 10 Downing Street https://trib.al/5y2ASIl
Probably for the best, TBH, if the underfunded waffle of the Levelling Up paper is anything to go by.
Perhaps they could level up the licensing system and make the system for permission to hold events and consume alcohol etc much simpler and easier? Combine both stories.
Nasir Afzal devastating re Boris/Saville this morning. Boris really should be in big trouble over this, particularly because of the impact it has on his victims as a consequence of him reopening it.
Some in the media seem to think it's a suggestion from Crosby, following his dead cat strategy.
But the idea of 'dead cat' is that you get people talking about something else, even if it's bad.
Trying to distract from the matter of the PM being a big liar, by telling another big lie, isn't going to work the same way.
Nasir took it apart bit by bit as he was put in charge of sorting it out by Starmer, but on top of that he quoted Boris stating something regarding child abuse and spaffing money up against the wall and I'm sure he would have been careful in saying that on the BBC. Finally he covered the specific suffering of victims of Saville since Boris mentioned it who had contacted him since Boris brought it up. Again examples of how Boris harms people by his comments.
Now seen some of that interview is on the news.
If what Nasir says is accurate, and I see no reason why it isn't, then Starmer was not in anyway involved in the cock up and was key in sorting it out.
Boris should be asked to make the same comment outside of parliament.
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
When the government practice open corruption and ask no questions tenders with no penalty clauses for non-delivery, why should we expect them to run a proper legal system? Where is the benefit?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
However, you fail to remember where we were in April/May last year. We needed PPE. In this case - as in war - the government had to do whatever it could to get PPE. It did.
According to the article below, the government had 8,000 offers from suppliers of PPE. That is a massive number, when decisions needed making immediately, sometimes to the day, or the kit would not be got. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52369223
Here's a sad truth for you: Labour under Starmer would have done exactly the same thing, because not to do so would have been a grossly wrong.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
That's the issue here but again it's hidden alongside other issues so people don't focus on the important one.
In fact this is an incredibly obvious playbook - we get given the complete picture (PPE, BBL fraud) and then when people pick up the real fixable problems that demonstrate a real screw up that they were responsible flaw they change the conversation to a different issue that was revealed at the same time.
PPE has - mates without experience allowed to purchase anything at vast expense, expensive proper PPE purchased when supply was less than demand and fraud. BBL has - clearly fraudulent loans (companies created after the scheme began), dodgy loans and failed firms.
In both cases there is a clear area that could be investigated but it can't be because other issues are used to hide and sidetrack from the outright fraud.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
The government got the PPE. Your approach would not have got it.
(As for Labour not letting their mates get advantage; the history of Labour rather goes against this.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
I don't see points you have made that need to be addressed. You are not a fan of this government, neither am I. You are making claims about what Labour would have done - I'm not a supporter of theirs either so why do I have to answer straw man claims against them?
The contract piece is simple. We will pay you £107m (a contract value seemingly used a lot), you will deliver the contract. Who you purchase supplies from to fulfil the contract is not our business (and we know that they won't have paid £107m). Non-delivery of the contract will trigger repayment by you.
Thats it. The contract is between the government and PPECo. When PPE co supplies crap, they get asked to repay. If they can't repay then there are standard procedures for such things. We didn't even try - and these aren't all companies that were created solely for this and wound up.
(Snip)
That approach would have got you no PPE in many cases.
Ellwood also very unhappy about the Savile slur, telling @SkyNews: “The attacking this week of Keir Starmer with Jimmy Savile. I mean who advised the Prime Minister to say this? We’re better than this. We must seek to improve our standards and rise above where we are today.”
He's still searching for an adviser being responsible somehow re Saville jibe. The simpler explanation is he thought of it himself
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
When the government practice open corruption and ask no questions tenders with no penalty clauses for non-delivery, why should we expect them to run a proper legal system? Where is the benefit?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
However, you fail to remember where we were in April/May last year. We needed PPE. In this case - as in war - the government had to do whatever it could to get PPE. It did.
According to the article below, the government had 8,000 offers from suppliers of PPE. That is a massive number, when decisions needed making immediately, sometimes to the day, or the kit would not be got. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52369223
Here's a sad truth for you: Labour under Starmer would have done exactly the same thing, because not to do so would have been a grossly wrong.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
That's the issue here but again it's hidden alongside other issues so people don't focus on the important one.
In fact this is an incredibly obvious playbook - we get given the complete picture (PPE, BBL fraud) and then when people pick up the real fixable problems that demonstrate a real screw up that they were responsible flaw they change the conversation to a different issue that was revealed at the same time.
PPE has - mates without experience allowed to purchase anything at vast expense, expensive proper PPE purchased when supply was less than demand and fraud. BBL has - clearly fraudulent loans (companies created after the scheme began), dodgy loans and failed firms.
In both cases there is a clear area that could be investigated but it can't be because other issues are used to hide and sidetrack from the outright fraud.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
The government got the PPE. Your approach would not have got it.
(As for Labour not letting their mates get advantage; the history of Labour rather goes against this.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
(Whispers quietly): if we got into a real, massive shortage, we'd be using the non-CE marked stuff.
We needed the PPE. It was a massive seller's market. The government got the PPE.
Your analysis is: opponents were criticising the government for not getting the PPE and risking lives; they got the PPE and now we're criticising how it was obtained in an emergency.
Again, we are not criticising them getting actual PPE. We are criticising all the examples where they *didn't* get PPE. Or worse got PPE that was not fit for purpose, issued to hospitals who not only couldn't use it but couldn't quickly get replacements because "you've just been sent some".
Fast track no tender procurement where the contracts are delivered is one thing. Questionable but if it is ultimately successful then you allow it. Fast track no tender procurement where contracts are *not* delivered is something else.
In other matters, I am stuck at home with Rona and watching Bedknobs and Broomsticks with the kid, who is quite interested in the idea of all the children going on trains to stay safely in the countryside. Does anyone know how I’d find out if my house was used in the WW2 evacuation of children? Rural Kent.
There is the 1939 Register, now on ancestry.co.uk - a kind of emergency census. But quite early on, end Sept 1939; might catch the first wave of evacuees? And anyone who might still be alive today is blanked out. There was no 1941 census, alas (but it wouldn't be accessible for another 20 years anyway).
It caught the first wave of evacuees. I found relatives in unexpected places; a teacher aunt 60 miles from the port-town school where she taught in 1938, a 16 year old uncle 100 miles from home. I'd often wondered how he'd formed a friendship with the chap he did, and the evacuation details explained it.
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
When the government practice open corruption and ask no questions tenders with no penalty clauses for non-delivery, why should we expect them to run a proper legal system? Where is the benefit?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
However, you fail to remember where we were in April/May last year. We needed PPE. In this case - as in war - the government had to do whatever it could to get PPE. It did.
According to the article below, the government had 8,000 offers from suppliers of PPE. That is a massive number, when decisions needed making immediately, sometimes to the day, or the kit would not be got. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52369223
Here's a sad truth for you: Labour under Starmer would have done exactly the same thing, because not to do so would have been a grossly wrong.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
That's the issue here but again it's hidden alongside other issues so people don't focus on the important one.
In fact this is an incredibly obvious playbook - we get given the complete picture (PPE, BBL fraud) and then when people pick up the real fixable problems that demonstrate a real screw up that they were responsible flaw they change the conversation to a different issue that was revealed at the same time.
PPE has - mates without experience allowed to purchase anything at vast expense, expensive proper PPE purchased when supply was less than demand and fraud. BBL has - clearly fraudulent loans (companies created after the scheme began), dodgy loans and failed firms.
In both cases there is a clear area that could be investigated but it can't be because other issues are used to hide and sidetrack from the outright fraud.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
The government got the PPE. Your approach would not have got it.
(As for Labour not letting their mates get advantage; the history of Labour rather goes against this.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
In that case we should have had the non delivery clause or we should have paid a finders fee and asked him to forward a deal with the non delivery clause. One way or another you endeavour to pass the risk up the chain.
At lot of this should be going in to a (very expensive) lessons learnt and lets get prepared for the next disaster folder with a playbook on how to deal with things. But sadly it won't so we will have spent £bns and learnt nothing to avoid making the same mistakes next time round.
And if the sellers were not willing to sign a non-delivery clause, because they would have handed the money onto others?
You'd end up with no PPE.
We'll end up doing the same thing next time, because not doing it was unthinkable.
No we shouldn't because 1 - we should have more PPE stored for future usage. 2 - we can use Brexit to bring manufacturing back onshore (hey it may cost more but so what Brexit and jobs).
If we end up having to purchase it in an emergency again then next time round some ministers should be facing treason charges for gross stupidity.
The other, heretical idea, is to invest in non-disposable PPE.
The disposable stuff is often fragile, has a shelf life and still has disposal issue.
In the past, issues with toughness of materials and decontamination made non-disposable seem like a good idea.
However, we have lived through a materials and chemical revolution (and still are). In a number of industries there is non-disposable PPE manufactured that is lighter and tougher than ever before.
When I see picture of medical staff wearing an array of disposable masks, face shields, gowns etc - all with massive gaps.... I think of the next bug. Something that is truly airborne.
If they're in the electoral equivalent of a burning building, and face the certainty of burning to death or leaping from a dark window and facing a wide range and diversity of potential outcomes, what's the smart move?
Guaranteed agonising death, or the possibility of survival?
It's their own damned fault for backing the clown in the first place. Failing to remove him is another critical failure.
I wonder if that observation is right, but Conservative MPs are processing it differently.
Boris has led them to a world of pain, and it's going to get worse before it gets better. But he also possesses the Boris Myth, that he alone can work miracles. I've never met him (lucky me), but I can imagine him having the strange terrible charisma to make up for his many obvious flaws as a person and politician. He probably leads the Conservatives to a huge defeat in 2024, but maybe, just maybe...
Whereas anyone else, even if there was agreement on who, calmly leads the Conservatives to a calm, dignified, small but decisive defeat in 2024.
And in a way, that's how it should be. A political party shouldn't get away with letting itself be taken over by a clown. And not one of the jolly ones either.
Some real nuggets in here and I think you've explained better something I've been hinting.
If the tories stay with Boris Johnson until 2024 then I think Labour will be in power for at least two terms, so through to 2034. Effectively we are talking about a once in a generation sea change: like 1979 and 1997. Remember that Margaret Thatcher only beat Jim Callaghan by 7% and her majority was 'just' 44 seats. It was sufficient to usher in the most momentous change in this country since Attlee.
If they ditch him and have someone sensible and competent then they might be able to avoid a sea change defeat and at the worst leave Labour in coalition territory. That gives them every chance of returning to power in 2029.
Stay with Johnson and we're looking at 1979 or 1997. A sea change.
No party having lost power at a general election has returned to power by winning the subsequent general election since February 1974. That was the first time it had happened since 1924 and Heath's Tories still won the popular vote. So unlikely.
Except that in that time we had two sea changes: the Conservatives were in power from 1979 to 1997 and Labour from 1997 to 2010 - the very thing to which I was referring.
The only comparable period in your timeframe is 2010 to 2019. Cameron's win in 2015 is exactly the kind of thing I mean.
If, but it's a big if, the Conservatives don't do a Labour and select an unelectable leader (Jeremy Corbyn) then they would stand every chance of winning in c. 2029
Stay with Johnson and they're out of power for a generation.
So? Labour were back in front in the polls by 1980, Ed Miliband's by 2011 even though they still did not win.
Labour won a landslide in 1945 over Churchill but Churchill slashed their majority in 1950 from 146 to just 5 as the economy still continued sluggish growth with rationing post war.
Yes Labour won a landslide in 1997 and 2001 but that was mainly as Blair's first government was reasonably competent and the economy was growing and doing well.
If New Labour had run an incompetent government like Heath's in 1970 then they would have seen their majority at least slashed or lost power in 2001. Regardless of who the Tory PM who lost power in 1997 was
I read your analysis with interest most of the time, but that post makes no sense whatsoever.
HYUFD would do a lot better to post 1/10th of the quantity in the hope that it might raise the quality.
You're right: it was a senseless post which was all over the place and totally incoherent.
Yet you still had no response to it.
No I do but I don't mean to sound offensive but I have better things to do with my life than respond to your voluminous posting on here. 10% of the time you say something interesting, even useful. 90% is just a joke I'm afraid. Sorry. I don't mean to be personal and rude but that's how I see it.
Post less, think more. People will take you more seriously.
You are a left liberal, so obviously you will disagree with 90% of what I say as I am a diehard Conservative.
I am not bothered about whether people want to take me seriously or not, I just post as I see it
I do not know enough about the criminal justice system in England to comment in detail but the consequences for trials in Scotland of Covid have been severe. So many court days have been lost. The last trial I was set to do, where the complainers and the accused had been waiting 2 years for the case to come to trial, collapsed before the first witness was in the box because the principal complainer had come down with Covid. Trials with multiple accused have been impossible for the last 2 years, they simply require too many people in the same room.
In Scotland the High Court and the Sheriff court have used cinemas as Jury centres keeping juries remote from the court and able to maintain social distancing. In every trial this has added at least a day to the case because the first day is used selecting the jury who then have to attend the Jury centre the following morning. Almost every trial I have done in this period has had technical problems with the connection between the centre and the court. This becomes inevitable if the witness is also giving evidence remotely, which is often the case in sex trials.
The system is trying hard. We are running 19 High Court trial courts at once. This is unprecedented. I was talked into taking on another one yesterday due to start on the 16th. Bodies for both the defence and prosecution are quite hard to find. Defence counsel are racing from trial to trial and the system is having to accomodate them, recognising the importance of their role.
At the less serious end there was nearly 18 months with no trials except for those in custody. The processing capacity of JP and Sheriff courts have been massively reduced by the Covid regulations which limit the number of people allowed in the building at any one time, inevitably causing down time where something comes to an end prematurely and where witnesses have to be timetabled. It is really hard to get through the business in circumstances like that.
I mention all of this because I am not really convinced that the delays in matters coming to trial are being caused by the reasons @Cyclefree says. The mass departure of young criminal barristers and experienced solicitors capable of preparing a case because they simply cannot make a living on ridiculous legal aid rates will certainly be having an effect. But I would be astonished if the lack of court rooms was the problem.
As in so many other areas of life we need to get back to normal with the restrictions removed. And then we need to catch up the backlog. Its going to be a hell of a slog.
Covid has caused real problems in the criminal justice system. But it was on its knees before that and so the measures needed by Covid have exacerbated problems.
The cuts to legal aid, the inept privatisation of the probation service (which had to be reversed), the disclosure failures which harmed so many rape trials, the cuts to sitting hours, the budget cuts - all of these happened before Covid.
The failure in the police were not caused by Covid.
The failure in local authorities over child sexual abuse were not caused by Covid.
Covid will be used as an excuse for all sorts of failings. It will have played a part but its part will be hugely exaggerated and, if we let the government get away with it, it will be used as an all-purpose excuse for all sorts of failings and problems which are in reality down to deliberate decisions by government ministers.
As I say I am not in a position to comment in detail on the English situation but I have read many articles about junior barristers simply leaving the profession because they cannot make ends meet. We have seen the same effect in Scotland where legal aid rates for criminal work have not been increased since 1991.
I'm seriously surprised we have anything that looks like a legal system for criminal work - the pay is utterly crap...
Not at the top end. Criminal QCs earn about £250,000 a year ie more than the PM and comfortably in the top 1% of earners.
However junior criminal barristers starting out often earn little more than minimum wage, criminal solicitors not much more, it is pay at the lower end that needs addressing
The lower end is 99 percent of the profession. But the big problem is attracting new entrants.
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
When the government practice open corruption and ask no questions tenders with no penalty clauses for non-delivery, why should we expect them to run a proper legal system? Where is the benefit?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
However, you fail to remember where we were in April/May last year. We needed PPE. In this case - as in war - the government had to do whatever it could to get PPE. It did.
According to the article below, the government had 8,000 offers from suppliers of PPE. That is a massive number, when decisions needed making immediately, sometimes to the day, or the kit would not be got. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52369223
Here's a sad truth for you: Labour under Starmer would have done exactly the same thing, because not to do so would have been a grossly wrong.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
That's the issue here but again it's hidden alongside other issues so people don't focus on the important one.
In fact this is an incredibly obvious playbook - we get given the complete picture (PPE, BBL fraud) and then when people pick up the real fixable problems that demonstrate a real screw up that they were responsible flaw they change the conversation to a different issue that was revealed at the same time.
PPE has - mates without experience allowed to purchase anything at vast expense, expensive proper PPE purchased when supply was less than demand and fraud. BBL has - clearly fraudulent loans (companies created after the scheme began), dodgy loans and failed firms.
In both cases there is a clear area that could be investigated but it can't be because other issues are used to hide and sidetrack from the outright fraud.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
The government got the PPE. Your approach would not have got it.
(As for Labour not letting their mates get advantage; the history of Labour rather goes against this.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
In that case we should have had the non delivery clause or we should have paid a finders fee and asked him to forward a deal with the non delivery clause. One way or another you endeavour to pass the risk up the chain.
At lot of this should be going in to a (very expensive) lessons learnt and lets get prepared for the next disaster folder with a playbook on how to deal with things. But sadly it won't so we will have spent £bns and learnt nothing to avoid making the same mistakes next time round.
And if the sellers were not willing to sign a non-delivery clause, because they would have handed the money onto others?
You'd end up with no PPE.
We'll end up doing the same thing next time, because not doing it was unthinkable.
No we shouldn't because 1 - we should have more PPE stored for future usage. 2 - we can use Brexit to bring manufacturing back onshore (hey it may cost more but so what Brexit and jobs).
If we end up having to purchase it in an emergency again then next time round some ministers should be facing treason charges for gross stupidity.
We had a demand 20 times normal level. We were using it up a month's worth in a couple of days or so. How much storage do you want to have, and what does it cost for the decades it is needed? Answer: a lot, and you have aheck of a lot of depreciation costs and waste as well.
How much do we pay to have manufacturing permanently capable of making 20-times the 'normal' levels in a rapid surge?
The charges of gross stupidity are those who were screeching for PPE two years ago, and who are now saying they should have been got by other means - in reality meaning they wouldn't have got them.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
A vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson is now "inevitable", Tobias Ellwood has said as he confirmed he will submit a letter to the 1922 Committee later today.
Mr Ellwood, the chairman of the defence committee, told Sky News the ongoing row over alleged parties at Downing Street was "horrible" for Conservative MPs to continue to have to defend to the British public, and attacked "rushed policy announcements" from No 10.
"I don't think the Prime Minister realises how worried colleagues are in every corner of the party, backbenchers and ministers alike that this is all only going one way," Mr Ellwood told Sky News.
"I believe it's time for the Prime Minister to take a grip of this, he himself should call a vote of confidence rather than waiting for the inevitable 54 letters to be eventually submitted. It's time to resolve this completely, so the party can get on with governing.
"And yes, I know the next question you'll ask, I will be submitting my letter today to the 1922 Committee."
He also criticised Boris Johnson's claims about Sir Keir Starmer in relation to Jimmy Savile on Monday, adding: "We must seek to improve our standards."
Leon in his dotage (60 I think by now?) still seems to think he's the authority on women, relationships and, well, just about everything from nature to Sri Lanka to arts to history.
Well I don't think you've got Johnson's relationship to Carrie right at all. Way way way wide of the mark.
I'm obviously something of a feminist but Carrie has Boris under her thumb. Why so? Apart from being married and in such a public relationship she has a LOT on him.
You think Dom is vicious? One misstep by Johnson and Carrie can unleash hell on him.
He's under her thumb alright.
I can’t work out if you’re a brilliant caricature of a po-faced, lemon-chewing, mouth-like-a-frightened-cat’s-anus disapproving lefty hypocrite with zero point zero sense of humour, or whether this is actually you, so I can’t work out whether you are deserving of praise or sympathy!
On reflection, I think this is actually YOU. No one could be this consistently unfunny. So: you have my sympathies
I do not know enough about the criminal justice system in England to comment in detail but the consequences for trials in Scotland of Covid have been severe. So many court days have been lost. The last trial I was set to do, where the complainers and the accused had been waiting 2 years for the case to come to trial, collapsed before the first witness was in the box because the principal complainer had come down with Covid. Trials with multiple accused have been impossible for the last 2 years, they simply require too many people in the same room.
In Scotland the High Court and the Sheriff court have used cinemas as Jury centres keeping juries remote from the court and able to maintain social distancing. In every trial this has added at least a day to the case because the first day is used selecting the jury who then have to attend the Jury centre the following morning. Almost every trial I have done in this period has had technical problems with the connection between the centre and the court. This becomes inevitable if the witness is also giving evidence remotely, which is often the case in sex trials.
The system is trying hard. We are running 19 High Court trial courts at once. This is unprecedented. I was talked into taking on another one yesterday due to start on the 16th. Bodies for both the defence and prosecution are quite hard to find. Defence counsel are racing from trial to trial and the system is having to accomodate them, recognising the importance of their role.
At the less serious end there was nearly 18 months with no trials except for those in custody. The processing capacity of JP and Sheriff courts have been massively reduced by the Covid regulations which limit the number of people allowed in the building at any one time, inevitably causing down time where something comes to an end prematurely and where witnesses have to be timetabled. It is really hard to get through the business in circumstances like that.
I mention all of this because I am not really convinced that the delays in matters coming to trial are being caused by the reasons @Cyclefree says. The mass departure of young criminal barristers and experienced solicitors capable of preparing a case because they simply cannot make a living on ridiculous legal aid rates will certainly be having an effect. But I would be astonished if the lack of court rooms was the problem.
As in so many other areas of life we need to get back to normal with the restrictions removed. And then we need to catch up the backlog. Its going to be a hell of a slog.
Covid has caused real problems in the criminal justice system. But it was on its knees before that and so the measures needed by Covid have exacerbated problems.
The cuts to legal aid, the inept privatisation of the probation service (which had to be reversed), the disclosure failures which harmed so many rape trials, the cuts to sitting hours, the budget cuts - all of these happened before Covid.
The failure in the police were not caused by Covid.
The failure in local authorities over child sexual abuse were not caused by Covid.
Covid will be used as an excuse for all sorts of failings. It will have played a part but its part will be hugely exaggerated and, if we let the government get away with it, it will be used as an all-purpose excuse for all sorts of failings and problems which are in reality down to deliberate decisions by government ministers.
As I say I am not in a position to comment in detail on the English situation but I have read many articles about junior barristers simply leaving the profession because they cannot make ends meet. We have seen the same effect in Scotland where legal aid rates for criminal work have not been increased since 1991.
I'm seriously surprised we have anything that looks like a legal system for criminal work - the pay is utterly crap...
Not at the top end. Criminal QCs earn about £250,000 a year ie more than the PM and comfortably in the top 1% of earners.
However junior criminal barristers starting out often earn little more than minimum wage, criminal solicitors not much more, it is pay at the lower end that needs addressing
The lower end is 99 percent of the profession. But the big problem is attracting new entrants.
Indeed, when NQ city solicitors and commercial barristers can earn £50,000+, well above the average salary it is the new entrants who need to be attracted.
If you are very good at it though and stick the course you can still prosper in criminal law
Quite extraordinary that the likes of David Davis haven’t put their letters in. How many more weeks of watching Johnson debase their brand do they want to see?
I just heard David Davis's j'accuse moment as opposed to reading an account of it; the dampest of rhetorical squibs, like Phil Mitchell doing Shakespeare. Typical DD that he needed to retread what is basically a political cliché for his big moment.
Typical Boris who claimed, incredibly, not to know the quotation.
I do not know enough about the criminal justice system in England to comment in detail but the consequences for trials in Scotland of Covid have been severe. So many court days have been lost. The last trial I was set to do, where the complainers and the accused had been waiting 2 years for the case to come to trial, collapsed before the first witness was in the box because the principal complainer had come down with Covid. Trials with multiple accused have been impossible for the last 2 years, they simply require too many people in the same room.
In Scotland the High Court and the Sheriff court have used cinemas as Jury centres keeping juries remote from the court and able to maintain social distancing. In every trial this has added at least a day to the case because the first day is used selecting the jury who then have to attend the Jury centre the following morning. Almost every trial I have done in this period has had technical problems with the connection between the centre and the court. This becomes inevitable if the witness is also giving evidence remotely, which is often the case in sex trials.
The system is trying hard. We are running 19 High Court trial courts at once. This is unprecedented. I was talked into taking on another one yesterday due to start on the 16th. Bodies for both the defence and prosecution are quite hard to find. Defence counsel are racing from trial to trial and the system is having to accomodate them, recognising the importance of their role.
At the less serious end there was nearly 18 months with no trials except for those in custody. The processing capacity of JP and Sheriff courts have been massively reduced by the Covid regulations which limit the number of people allowed in the building at any one time, inevitably causing down time where something comes to an end prematurely and where witnesses have to be timetabled. It is really hard to get through the business in circumstances like that.
I mention all of this because I am not really convinced that the delays in matters coming to trial are being caused by the reasons @Cyclefree says. The mass departure of young criminal barristers and experienced solicitors capable of preparing a case because they simply cannot make a living on ridiculous legal aid rates will certainly be having an effect. But I would be astonished if the lack of court rooms was the problem.
As in so many other areas of life we need to get back to normal with the restrictions removed. And then we need to catch up the backlog. Its going to be a hell of a slog.
Doesn't mean that the covid problems aren't adduing to the structural ones, in at least some areas/jurisdictions. But an interesting post. Clearly a problem to be fixed.
Sure, the system was creaking before Covid. But the consequences of the pandemic have taken us into an unknown land. I personally think that many tens of thousands of less serious cases will have to be dropped.
As for @Cyclefree's comments on the police, it really shows where the defunding movement in the US has come from. They do not want no police, what they want is a police force that is not a major part of the problem and they have given up in despair of reform for exactly the reasons @Cyclefree so eloquently summarises.
Radically reforming the police is a worthy goal. It's a very weird thing how some are so wedded to a misleading slogan theyd rather whinge about it being misinterpreted by opponents than swap it for a more appropriate one.
Like a lot of US slogans that make it over here I think it makes a bit more sense in the US context. But "replace the police" would make more sense. The point of the slogan is that some police departments are beyond reform, and need to be rebuilt from the ground up. I'm not sure we are at that point yet with the Met but we're getting there.
The problem in the US is that the Police there are more of a problem that the Police in the UK were before the round of reforms - the ones in the 1960s.
We have de-escalation taught and formally part of the operating procedures in every force.
In the US, there was a case of a UK policeman who got a job there. On his first training day he was pulled up for trying to de-escalate a situation. Because he had failed to "Dominate" to the situation.....
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
When the government practice open corruption and ask no questions tenders with no penalty clauses for non-delivery, why should we expect them to run a proper legal system? Where is the benefit?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
However, you fail to remember where we were in April/May last year. We needed PPE. In this case - as in war - the government had to do whatever it could to get PPE. It did.
According to the article below, the government had 8,000 offers from suppliers of PPE. That is a massive number, when decisions needed making immediately, sometimes to the day, or the kit would not be got. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52369223
Here's a sad truth for you: Labour under Starmer would have done exactly the same thing, because not to do so would have been a grossly wrong.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
That's the issue here but again it's hidden alongside other issues so people don't focus on the important one.
In fact this is an incredibly obvious playbook - we get given the complete picture (PPE, BBL fraud) and then when people pick up the real fixable problems that demonstrate a real screw up that they were responsible flaw they change the conversation to a different issue that was revealed at the same time.
PPE has - mates without experience allowed to purchase anything at vast expense, expensive proper PPE purchased when supply was less than demand and fraud. BBL has - clearly fraudulent loans (companies created after the scheme began), dodgy loans and failed firms.
In both cases there is a clear area that could be investigated but it can't be because other issues are used to hide and sidetrack from the outright fraud.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
The government got the PPE. Your approach would not have got it.
(As for Labour not letting their mates get advantage; the history of Labour rather goes against this.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
(Whispers quietly): if we got into a real, massive shortage, we'd be using the non-CE marked stuff.
We needed the PPE. It was a massive seller's market. The government got the PPE.
Your analysis is: opponents were criticising the government for not getting the PPE and risking lives; they got the PPE and now we're criticising how it was obtained in an emergency.
Again, we are not criticising them getting actual PPE. We are criticising all the examples where they *didn't* get PPE. Or worse got PPE that was not fit for purpose, issued to hospitals who not only couldn't use it but couldn't quickly get replacements because "you've just been sent some".
Fast track no tender procurement where the contracts are delivered is one thing. Questionable but if it is ultimately successful then you allow it. Fast track no tender procurement where contracts are *not* delivered is something else.
You are criticising them for getting PPE, because they had to do what they could to get it. Trying to stop the cases of waste and fraud you are outlining would have meant we didn't get much of the stuff we did get.
Put simply: in the crisis, we could either get the PPE with some waste and fraud. Or we could not get the PPE. You are trying to single out the 'bad' contracts after the event, when it would have been difficult to single them out in a crisis were every hour counted.
Leon in his dotage (60 I think by now?) still seems to think he's the authority on women, relationships and, well, just about everything from nature to Sri Lanka to arts to history.
Well I don't think you've got Johnson's relationship to Carrie right at all. Way way way wide of the mark.
I'm obviously something of a feminist but Carrie has Boris under her thumb. Why so? Apart from being married and in such a public relationship she has a LOT on him.
You think Dom is vicious? One misstep by Johnson and Carrie can unleash hell on him.
He's under her thumb alright.
Well she's the one person able to talk about anything that the rest of us aren't, should there be a reason why we can't, which there isn't. She would hold his reputation in her hands, were that to be true, which it isn't. The media would also know about it, were there anything to know, and if there was they might find this frustrating and adopt a more negative stance towards his personal foibles accordingly, so it's good news for him that there isn't and therefore they haven't.
Was that even less coherent before the edit?
It is palpably wrong. Even in terms of known unknowns, she could destroy Johnson in the next 3 minutes by saying that Johnson was at a flat party. The reason she doesn't is that at the moment that destroys her too. The media know a lot more than they publish - they have known about these parties all along, what with one of them being a leaving do for a bloke who went to the Sun.
And Johnson being the shit he is there is no doubt there's unknown unknowns by the bucketload to which his wife is privy
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
When the government practice open corruption and ask no questions tenders with no penalty clauses for non-delivery, why should we expect them to run a proper legal system? Where is the benefit?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
However, you fail to remember where we were in April/May last year. We needed PPE. In this case - as in war - the government had to do whatever it could to get PPE. It did.
According to the article below, the government had 8,000 offers from suppliers of PPE. That is a massive number, when decisions needed making immediately, sometimes to the day, or the kit would not be got. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52369223
Here's a sad truth for you: Labour under Starmer would have done exactly the same thing, because not to do so would have been a grossly wrong.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
That's the issue here but again it's hidden alongside other issues so people don't focus on the important one.
In fact this is an incredibly obvious playbook - we get given the complete picture (PPE, BBL fraud) and then when people pick up the real fixable problems that demonstrate a real screw up that they were responsible flaw they change the conversation to a different issue that was revealed at the same time.
PPE has - mates without experience allowed to purchase anything at vast expense, expensive proper PPE purchased when supply was less than demand and fraud. BBL has - clearly fraudulent loans (companies created after the scheme began), dodgy loans and failed firms.
In both cases there is a clear area that could be investigated but it can't be because other issues are used to hide and sidetrack from the outright fraud.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
The government got the PPE. Your approach would not have got it.
(As for Labour not letting their mates get advantage; the history of Labour rather goes against this.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
In that case we should have had the non delivery clause or we should have paid a finders fee and asked him to forward a deal with the non delivery clause. One way or another you endeavour to pass the risk up the chain.
At lot of this should be going in to a (very expensive) lessons learnt and lets get prepared for the next disaster folder with a playbook on how to deal with things. But sadly it won't so we will have spent £bns and learnt nothing to avoid making the same mistakes next time round.
And if the sellers were not willing to sign a non-delivery clause, because they would have handed the money onto others?
You'd end up with no PPE.
We'll end up doing the same thing next time, because not doing it was unthinkable.
No we shouldn't because 1 - we should have more PPE stored for future usage. 2 - we can use Brexit to bring manufacturing back onshore (hey it may cost more but so what Brexit and jobs).
If we end up having to purchase it in an emergency again then next time round some ministers should be facing treason charges for gross stupidity.
But if your PPE is supplied by factories along the A1 then all you have to do is ring them up to place an order.
So there's not much scope for the 10% types to get themselves involved in the process.
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. How the governing system deal with that is a choice. As Monday's events - and the actions of the Speaker - showed, we now have a system which rules those lies in order, and suspends from the Commons MPs who call out those lies.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Johnsons reply would have been.
"He is wrong and really needs to wait for the inquiry. Oh and Brexit and Vaccines and Levelling Up. Errr and you and Starmer smell."
If I'd been an MP I'd have been tempted to stand up and simply ask the PM "which day of the year is his birthday?". If he made the slip of repeating the standard reply about Gray, or even started down that path, he'd have looked a complete idiot. If, more likely, he gave the actual answer, it would have been the first piece of concrete information achieved by a question for some time in that debate, and the point wouldn't have been lost on the House.
Try this for size. Ravey Mikey Govey squirming on Sky News. Trying to hold the "we won't know if the PM was at a party in his flat singing The Winner Takes It All until the met investigate" line. "But he knows if he was there" is pointed out.
Its no wonder the world is now laughing at this country.
That's an amusing interview. I'm a Gove fan (not least as he's actually produced a policy today - unlike most Ministers lately) and I think he makes a gallant effort, but most Ministers would hide behind the sofa to avoid going there.
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
When the government practice open corruption and ask no questions tenders with no penalty clauses for non-delivery, why should we expect them to run a proper legal system? Where is the benefit?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
However, you fail to remember where we were in April/May last year. We needed PPE. In this case - as in war - the government had to do whatever it could to get PPE. It did.
According to the article below, the government had 8,000 offers from suppliers of PPE. That is a massive number, when decisions needed making immediately, sometimes to the day, or the kit would not be got. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52369223
Here's a sad truth for you: Labour under Starmer would have done exactly the same thing, because not to do so would have been a grossly wrong.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
That's the issue here but again it's hidden alongside other issues so people don't focus on the important one.
In fact this is an incredibly obvious playbook - we get given the complete picture (PPE, BBL fraud) and then when people pick up the real fixable problems that demonstrate a real screw up that they were responsible flaw they change the conversation to a different issue that was revealed at the same time.
PPE has - mates without experience allowed to purchase anything at vast expense, expensive proper PPE purchased when supply was less than demand and fraud. BBL has - clearly fraudulent loans (companies created after the scheme began), dodgy loans and failed firms.
In both cases there is a clear area that could be investigated but it can't be because other issues are used to hide and sidetrack from the outright fraud.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
The government got the PPE. Your approach would not have got it.
(As for Labour not letting their mates get advantage; the history of Labour rather goes against this.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
I'd suggest in a massive emergency sub-standard PPE is better than no PPE at all.
My mum and a like-minded coterie of competent senior citizens teamed up to make PPE for Macclesfield hospital. Facemasks, largely, IIRC - dozens and dozens of them. Not technically difficult, but more than I could do. I very much doubt that had a CE mark on it. Because it was an emergency, we were getting through PPE faster than it could be procured, any PPE was better than no PPE. Did it eventually get used? I don't know. But had we got down to a stock of zero I'd suggest it would have been pretty churlish to turn it down.
Guess what the latest threat is to Tory backbenchers thinking of toppling the PM? That @BorisJohnson would 'do a Corbyn': fight a leadership ballot and win with the backing of party members.
I thought this was just a hyufd fantasy, apparently not
I didn't think that was possible under Tory rules. The incumbent faces a VONC, if they lose that is it. They are not allowed to be a candidate in the new election. If they win they are, in theory, safe for a year but May showed that is not necessarily the case in practice.
It also doesn't work in practice, since Tory members are already keener to see him go now than are the MPs, and if he'd already been rejected by the MPs his path through the ballot would likely see him lose. The further you get away from Parliament the less support he has.
Not true, only last month 66% of Tory members still wanted Boris to stay PM and Tory leader with Opinium. That was far higher than the 28% of the public and even the 49% of 2019 Tory voters who wanted Boris to stay
My point was that "Tory members are already keener to see him go now than are the MPs", and that is demonstrably true. It is also true that Tory voters are keener to see him go than are Tory members and that all voters are keener than are Tory voters.
In the scenario where he had already been rejected by the MPs, he would be toast. So it's a bluff.
I can believe the 54 letters threshold may soon be breached but, given how long it is taking to get there, even in the face of such compelling evidence that Johnson should go, the prospects of him losing the VONC must be very low.
Johnson’s shadow whipping operation pledged to MPs a “total clear-out” of No10.
But so far, only his principal private secretary Martin Reynolds is expected to move on. Some No10 say chief of staff Dan Rosenfield also in conversations about a new role.
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
When the government practice open corruption and ask no questions tenders with no penalty clauses for non-delivery, why should we expect them to run a proper legal system? Where is the benefit?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
However, you fail to remember where we were in April/May last year. We needed PPE. In this case - as in war - the government had to do whatever it could to get PPE. It did.
According to the article below, the government had 8,000 offers from suppliers of PPE. That is a massive number, when decisions needed making immediately, sometimes to the day, or the kit would not be got. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52369223
Here's a sad truth for you: Labour under Starmer would have done exactly the same thing, because not to do so would have been a grossly wrong.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
That's the issue here but again it's hidden alongside other issues so people don't focus on the important one.
In fact this is an incredibly obvious playbook - we get given the complete picture (PPE, BBL fraud) and then when people pick up the real fixable problems that demonstrate a real screw up that they were responsible flaw they change the conversation to a different issue that was revealed at the same time.
PPE has - mates without experience allowed to purchase anything at vast expense, expensive proper PPE purchased when supply was less than demand and fraud. BBL has - clearly fraudulent loans (companies created after the scheme began), dodgy loans and failed firms.
In both cases there is a clear area that could be investigated but it can't be because other issues are used to hide and sidetrack from the outright fraud.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
The government got the PPE. Your approach would not have got it.
(As for Labour not letting their mates get advantage; the history of Labour rather goes against this.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
(Whispers quietly): if we got into a real, massive shortage, we'd be using the non-CE marked stuff.
We needed the PPE. It was a massive seller's market. The government got the PPE.
Your analysis is: opponents were criticising the government for not getting the PPE and risking lives; they got the PPE and now we're criticising how it was obtained in an emergency.
Again, we are not criticising them getting actual PPE. We are criticising all the examples where they *didn't* get PPE. Or worse got PPE that was not fit for purpose, issued to hospitals who not only couldn't use it but couldn't quickly get replacements because "you've just been sent some".
Fast track no tender procurement where the contracts are delivered is one thing. Questionable but if it is ultimately successful then you allow it. Fast track no tender procurement where contracts are *not* delivered is something else.
You are criticising them for getting PPE, because they had to do what they could to get it. Trying to stop the cases of waste and fraud you are outlining would have meant we didn't get much of the stuff we did get.
Put simply: in the crisis, we could either get the PPE with some waste and fraud. Or we could not get the PPE. You are trying to single out the 'bad' contracts after the event, when it would have been difficult to single them out in a crisis were every hour counted.
Even more simply, we could a. get PPE or b. not get PPE If we went for option a. we could do it c. competently or d. incompetently
Nobody understands why you rule out a. and c. as a possibility
I do not know enough about the criminal justice system in England to comment in detail but the consequences for trials in Scotland of Covid have been severe. So many court days have been lost. The last trial I was set to do, where the complainers and the accused had been waiting 2 years for the case to come to trial, collapsed before the first witness was in the box because the principal complainer had come down with Covid. Trials with multiple accused have been impossible for the last 2 years, they simply require too many people in the same room.
In Scotland the High Court and the Sheriff court have used cinemas as Jury centres keeping juries remote from the court and able to maintain social distancing. In every trial this has added at least a day to the case because the first day is used selecting the jury who then have to attend the Jury centre the following morning. Almost every trial I have done in this period has had technical problems with the connection between the centre and the court. This becomes inevitable if the witness is also giving evidence remotely, which is often the case in sex trials.
The system is trying hard. We are running 19 High Court trial courts at once. This is unprecedented. I was talked into taking on another one yesterday due to start on the 16th. Bodies for both the defence and prosecution are quite hard to find. Defence counsel are racing from trial to trial and the system is having to accomodate them, recognising the importance of their role.
At the less serious end there was nearly 18 months with no trials except for those in custody. The processing capacity of JP and Sheriff courts have been massively reduced by the Covid regulations which limit the number of people allowed in the building at any one time, inevitably causing down time where something comes to an end prematurely and where witnesses have to be timetabled. It is really hard to get through the business in circumstances like that.
I mention all of this because I am not really convinced that the delays in matters coming to trial are being caused by the reasons @Cyclefree says. The mass departure of young criminal barristers and experienced solicitors capable of preparing a case because they simply cannot make a living on ridiculous legal aid rates will certainly be having an effect. But I would be astonished if the lack of court rooms was the problem.
As in so many other areas of life we need to get back to normal with the restrictions removed. And then we need to catch up the backlog. Its going to be a hell of a slog.
Covid has caused real problems in the criminal justice system. But it was on its knees before that and so the measures needed by Covid have exacerbated problems.
The cuts to legal aid, the inept privatisation of the probation service (which had to be reversed), the disclosure failures which harmed so many rape trials, the cuts to sitting hours, the budget cuts - all of these happened before Covid.
The failure in the police were not caused by Covid.
The failure in local authorities over child sexual abuse were not caused by Covid.
Covid will be used as an excuse for all sorts of failings. It will have played a part but its part will be hugely exaggerated and, if we let the government get away with it, it will be used as an all-purpose excuse for all sorts of failings and problems which are in reality down to deliberate decisions by government ministers.
As I say I am not in a position to comment in detail on the English situation but I have read many articles about junior barristers simply leaving the profession because they cannot make ends meet. We have seen the same effect in Scotland where legal aid rates for criminal work have not been increased since 1991.
I'm seriously surprised we have anything that looks like a legal system for criminal work - the pay is utterly crap...
Not at the top end. Criminal QCs earn about £250,000 a year ie more than the PM and comfortably in the top 1% of earners.
However junior criminal barristers starting out often earn little more than minimum wage, criminal solicitors not much more, it is pay at the lower end that needs addressing
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
Sending troops into Ukraine now risks WW3.
Sending British troops to Nato states Estonia and Latvia though as Boris is doing is a sensible precaution
Russia's Deputy UN Ambassador, Dmitry Polyanskiy, never a diplomat to hold back, tells Sky News: "There is always room for diplomacy, but frankly, we don't trust British diplomacy. I think in recent years, British diplomacy has shown that it is absolutely worthless. https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1488798946868842502
I still trust Britain over his shithole regime.
Russian diplomacy reminds me of the prank the Nazi leaders played on Von Ribbentrop - who was a bit of a Billy-no-mates.
They game him an elaborate box for his birthday. With a copy of all the treaties and agreements he'd negotiated in it. It turned out to be a bit empty, because Hitler had broken most of them, so those ones were out....
If they're in the electoral equivalent of a burning building, and face the certainty of burning to death or leaping from a dark window and facing a wide range and diversity of potential outcomes, what's the smart move?
Guaranteed agonising death, or the possibility of survival?
It's their own damned fault for backing the clown in the first place. Failing to remove him is another critical failure.
I wonder if that observation is right, but Conservative MPs are processing it differently.
Boris has led them to a world of pain, and it's going to get worse before it gets better. But he also possesses the Boris Myth, that he alone can work miracles. I've never met him (lucky me), but I can imagine him having the strange terrible charisma to make up for his many obvious flaws as a person and politician. He probably leads the Conservatives to a huge defeat in 2024, but maybe, just maybe...
Whereas anyone else, even if there was agreement on who, calmly leads the Conservatives to a calm, dignified, small but decisive defeat in 2024.
And in a way, that's how it should be. A political party shouldn't get away with letting itself be taken over by a clown. And not one of the jolly ones either.
Some real nuggets in here and I think you've explained better something I've been hinting.
If the tories stay with Boris Johnson until 2024 then I think Labour will be in power for at least two terms, so through to 2034. Effectively we are talking about a once in a generation sea change: like 1979 and 1997. Remember that Margaret Thatcher only beat Jim Callaghan by 7% and her majority was 'just' 44 seats. It was sufficient to usher in the most momentous change in this country since Attlee.
If they ditch him and have someone sensible and competent then they might be able to avoid a sea change defeat and at the worst leave Labour in coalition territory. That gives them every chance of returning to power in 2029.
Stay with Johnson and we're looking at 1979 or 1997. A sea change.
No party having lost power at a general election has returned to power by winning the subsequent general election since February 1974. That was the first time it had happened since 1924 and Heath's Tories still won the popular vote. So unlikely.
Except that in that time we had two sea changes: the Conservatives were in power from 1979 to 1997 and Labour from 1997 to 2010 - the very thing to which I was referring.
The only comparable period in your timeframe is 2010 to 2019. Cameron's win in 2015 is exactly the kind of thing I mean.
If, but it's a big if, the Conservatives don't do a Labour and select an unelectable leader (Jeremy Corbyn) then they would stand every chance of winning in c. 2029
Stay with Johnson and they're out of power for a generation.
So? Labour were back in front in the polls by 1980, Ed Miliband's by 2011 even though they still did not win.
Labour won a landslide in 1945 over Churchill but Churchill slashed their majority in 1950 from 146 to just 5 as the economy still continued sluggish growth with rationing post war.
Yes Labour won a landslide in 1997 and 2001 but that was mainly as Blair's first government was reasonably competent and the economy was growing and doing well.
If New Labour had run an incompetent government like Heath's in 1970 then they would have seen their majority at least slashed or lost power in 2001. Regardless of who the Tory PM who lost power in 1997 was
I read your analysis with interest most of the time, but that post makes no sense whatsoever.
HYUFD would do a lot better to post 1/10th of the quantity in the hope that it might raise the quality.
You're right: it was a senseless post which was all over the place and totally incoherent.
Yet you still had no response to it.
No I do but I don't mean to sound offensive but I have better things to do with my life than respond to your voluminous posting on here. 10% of the time you say something interesting, even useful. 90% is just a joke I'm afraid. Sorry. I don't mean to be personal and rude but that's how I see it.
Post less, think more. People will take you more seriously.
You are a left liberal, so obviously you will disagree with 90% of what I say as I am a diehard Conservative.
There are plenty of people on the right here whose posts I respect even when I don't agree with them.
I'm afraid your 'diehard' approach often crosses over into parody. Do you not realise how ludicrous it often seems especially when you keep moving the goalposts? A good example: Labour lead "not 10%" then "Labour not on 40%" then it became "there are only 2 pollsters I now believe"
No one should be so diehard about any political party. Recognise your Party's faults (which at the moment are considerable in the Johnson case). I'm never so diehard to trip out Labour rubbish on here. They still have problems, especially a nasty left-wing element, anti-semitic traits and a frankly fairly dour leader (although he's been good lately).
But, then, I wouldn't just vote for a donkey wearing a red rosette. I'd vote LibDem tactically, and have done a number of times, and I've voted Green.
No one Party has a monopoly of truth or a right way of doing things and politics as a whole, and this forum with it, would be a better place if we recognised that.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
A vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson is now "inevitable", Tobias Ellwood has said as he confirmed he will submit a letter to the 1922 Committee later today.
Mr Ellwood, the chairman of the defence committee, told Sky News the ongoing row over alleged parties at Downing Street was "horrible" for Conservative MPs to continue to have to defend to the British public, and attacked "rushed policy announcements" from No 10.
"I don't think the Prime Minister realises how worried colleagues are in every corner of the party, backbenchers and ministers alike that this is all only going one way," Mr Ellwood told Sky News.
"I believe it's time for the Prime Minister to take a grip of this, he himself should call a vote of confidence rather than waiting for the inevitable 54 letters to be eventually submitted. It's time to resolve this completely, so the party can get on with governing.
"And yes, I know the next question you'll ask, I will be submitting my letter today to the 1922 Committee."
He also criticised Boris Johnson's claims about Sir Keir Starmer in relation to Jimmy Savile on Monday, adding: "We must seek to improve our standards."
Guess what the latest threat is to Tory backbenchers thinking of toppling the PM? That @BorisJohnson would 'do a Corbyn': fight a leadership ballot and win with the backing of party members.
I thought this was just a hyufd fantasy, apparently not
I didn't think that was possible under Tory rules. The incumbent faces a VONC, if they lose that is it. They are not allowed to be a candidate in the new election. If they win they are, in theory, safe for a year but May showed that is not necessarily the case in practice.
It also doesn't work in practice, since Tory members are already keener to see him go now than are the MPs, and if he'd already been rejected by the MPs his path through the ballot would likely see him lose. The further you get away from Parliament the less support he has.
Not true, only last month 66% of Tory members still wanted Boris to stay PM and Tory leader with Opinium. That was far higher than the 28% of the public and even the 49% of 2019 Tory voters who wanted Boris to stay
My point was that "Tory members are already keener to see him go now than are the MPs", and that is demonstrably true. It is also true that Tory voters are keener to see him go than are Tory members and that all voters are keener than are Tory voters.
In the scenario where he had already been rejected by the MPs, he would be toast. So it's a bluff.
Many thought the same when Corbyn lost a VONC amongst Labour MPs in 2016.
In other matters, I am stuck at home with Rona and watching Bedknobs and Broomsticks with the kid, who is quite interested in the idea of all the children going on trains to stay safely in the countryside. Does anyone know how I’d find out if my house was used in the WW2 evacuation of children? Rural Kent.
There is the 1939 Register, now on ancestry.co.uk - a kind of emergency census. But quite early on, end Sept 1939; might catch the first wave of evacuees? And anyone who might still be alive today is blanked out. There was no 1941 census, alas (but it wouldn't be accessible for another 20 years anyway).
It caught the first wave of evacuees. I found relatives in unexpected places; a teacher aunt 60 miles from the port-town school where she taught in 1938, a 16 year old uncle 100 miles from home. I'd often wondered how he'd formed a friendship with the chap he did, and the evacuation details explained it.
I do not know enough about the criminal justice system in England to comment in detail but the consequences for trials in Scotland of Covid have been severe. So many court days have been lost. The last trial I was set to do, where the complainers and the accused had been waiting 2 years for the case to come to trial, collapsed before the first witness was in the box because the principal complainer had come down with Covid. Trials with multiple accused have been impossible for the last 2 years, they simply require too many people in the same room.
In Scotland the High Court and the Sheriff court have used cinemas as Jury centres keeping juries remote from the court and able to maintain social distancing. In every trial this has added at least a day to the case because the first day is used selecting the jury who then have to attend the Jury centre the following morning. Almost every trial I have done in this period has had technical problems with the connection between the centre and the court. This becomes inevitable if the witness is also giving evidence remotely, which is often the case in sex trials.
The system is trying hard. We are running 19 High Court trial courts at once. This is unprecedented. I was talked into taking on another one yesterday due to start on the 16th. Bodies for both the defence and prosecution are quite hard to find. Defence counsel are racing from trial to trial and the system is having to accomodate them, recognising the importance of their role.
At the less serious end there was nearly 18 months with no trials except for those in custody. The processing capacity of JP and Sheriff courts have been massively reduced by the Covid regulations which limit the number of people allowed in the building at any one time, inevitably causing down time where something comes to an end prematurely and where witnesses have to be timetabled. It is really hard to get through the business in circumstances like that.
I mention all of this because I am not really convinced that the delays in matters coming to trial are being caused by the reasons @Cyclefree says. The mass departure of young criminal barristers and experienced solicitors capable of preparing a case because they simply cannot make a living on ridiculous legal aid rates will certainly be having an effect. But I would be astonished if the lack of court rooms was the problem.
As in so many other areas of life we need to get back to normal with the restrictions removed. And then we need to catch up the backlog. Its going to be a hell of a slog.
Doesn't mean that the covid problems aren't adduing to the structural ones, in at least some areas/jurisdictions. But an interesting post. Clearly a problem to be fixed.
Sure, the system was creaking before Covid. But the consequences of the pandemic have taken us into an unknown land. I personally think that many tens of thousands of less serious cases will have to be dropped.
As for @Cyclefree's comments on the police, it really shows where the defunding movement in the US has come from. They do not want no police, what they want is a police force that is not a major part of the problem and they have given up in despair of reform for exactly the reasons @Cyclefree so eloquently summarises.
People who want to defund the police actually want a police force that is less adversarial and more in line with an essentially benevolent and optimistic view of human nature. It is ultimately part of a socialist political project. But unfortunately this is a flawed view of the world, for all the same reasons as socialism and communism have been previously found to be flawed; and the experiments in implementing them have caused vast amounts of harm, including tens of millions of avoidable deaths.
The best you could hope to achieve in terms of policing and criminal justice policy is something like what was achieved in the Netherlands and Norway, but this involves the adoption of 'soft' criminal justice policies which the British public overwhelmingly reject.
The current situation is just very unsatisfactory and full of vast contradictions. The impulse to blame the police for the situation is strong, and some of the criticisms of the British police are clearly justified, but they are just one part of a bigger structure.
Russia's Deputy UN Ambassador, Dmitry Polyanskiy, never a diplomat to hold back, tells Sky News: "There is always room for diplomacy, but frankly, we don't trust British diplomacy. I think in recent years, British diplomacy has shown that it is absolutely worthless. https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1488798946868842502
I still trust Britain over his shithole regime.
Russian diplomacy reminds me of the prank the Nazi leaders played on Von Ribbentrop - who was a bit of a Billy-no-mates.
They game him an elaborate box for his birthday. With a copy of all the treaties and agreements he'd negotiated in it. It turned out to be a bit empty, because Hitler had broken most of them, so those ones were out....
I can believe the 54 letters threshold may soon be breached but, given how long it is taking to get there, even in the face of such compelling evidence that Johnson should go, the prospects of him losing the VONC must be very low.
I can believe the 54 letters threshold may soon be breached but, given how long it is taking to get there, even in the face of such compelling evidence that Johnson should go, the prospects of him losing the VONC must be very low.
Or am I missing something?
You may be right but the letters are public, I'm told the vote itself isn't. See the Alastair Meeks piece (or was it Nick Palmer?) about where he thinks the various MPs stand.
Boris is less Napoleon I and more Napoleon III. But nobody sang a song about the Battle of Sedan
To be fair on Napoleon III - he did run the country pretty well for 20 years, with financial and industrial reforms/expansion. There were even quite a bit of progressive legislation on labour laws etc.
Nasir Afzal devastating re Boris/Saville this morning. Boris really should be in big trouble over this, particularly because of the impact it has on his victims as a consequence of him reopening it.
Some in the media seem to think it's a suggestion from Crosby, following his dead cat strategy.
But the idea of 'dead cat' is that you get people talking about something else, even if it's bad.
Trying to distract from the matter of the PM being a big liar, by telling another big lie, isn't going to work the same way.
But it is consistent with the Multiple gaffe theory
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
I can believe the 54 letters threshold may soon be breached but, given how long it is taking to get there, even in the face of such compelling evidence that Johnson should go, the prospects of him losing the VONC must be very low.
Or am I missing something?
You may be right but the letters are public, I'm told the vote itself isn't. See the Alastair Meeks piece (or was it Nick Palmer?) about where he thinks the various MPs stand.
Nasir Afzal devastating re Boris/Saville this morning. Boris really should be in big trouble over this, particularly because of the impact it has on his victims as a consequence of him reopening it.
Some in the media seem to think it's a suggestion from Crosby, following his dead cat strategy.
But the idea of 'dead cat' is that you get people talking about something else, even if it's bad.
Trying to distract from the matter of the PM being a big liar, by telling another big lie, isn't going to work the same way.
But it is consistent with the Multiple gaffe theory
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
When the government practice open corruption and ask no questions tenders with no penalty clauses for non-delivery, why should we expect them to run a proper legal system? Where is the benefit?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
However, you fail to remember where we were in April/May last year. We needed PPE. In this case - as in war - the government had to do whatever it could to get PPE. It did.
According to the article below, the government had 8,000 offers from suppliers of PPE. That is a massive number, when decisions needed making immediately, sometimes to the day, or the kit would not be got. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52369223
Here's a sad truth for you: Labour under Starmer would have done exactly the same thing, because not to do so would have been a grossly wrong.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
That's the issue here but again it's hidden alongside other issues so people don't focus on the important one.
In fact this is an incredibly obvious playbook - we get given the complete picture (PPE, BBL fraud) and then when people pick up the real fixable problems that demonstrate a real screw up that they were responsible flaw they change the conversation to a different issue that was revealed at the same time.
PPE has - mates without experience allowed to purchase anything at vast expense, expensive proper PPE purchased when supply was less than demand and fraud. BBL has - clearly fraudulent loans (companies created after the scheme began), dodgy loans and failed firms.
In both cases there is a clear area that could be investigated but it can't be because other issues are used to hide and sidetrack from the outright fraud.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
The government got the PPE. Your approach would not have got it.
(As for Labour not letting their mates get advantage; the history of Labour rather goes against this.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
In that case we should have had the non delivery clause or we should have paid a finders fee and asked him to forward a deal with the non delivery clause. One way or another you endeavour to pass the risk up the chain.
At lot of this should be going in to a (very expensive) lessons learnt and lets get prepared for the next disaster folder with a playbook on how to deal with things. But sadly it won't so we will have spent £bns and learnt nothing to avoid making the same mistakes next time round.
And if the sellers were not willing to sign a non-delivery clause, because they would have handed the money onto others?
You'd end up with no PPE.
We'll end up doing the same thing next time, because not doing it was unthinkable.
No we shouldn't because 1 - we should have more PPE stored for future usage. 2 - we can use Brexit to bring manufacturing back onshore (hey it may cost more but so what Brexit and jobs).
If we end up having to purchase it in an emergency again then next time round some ministers should be facing treason charges for gross stupidity.
We got a lot wrong in the initial stages, and we can all say that we should have held suppliers to account for not supplying or for supplying poor quality. I get that. But we should remember the circumstances at the time, the sheer desperation for PPE. I mean we tracked individual planes bringing stuff in for gods sake. And our erstwhile friends, the French, showed their true colours are opted to 'shaft' us at a time of need.
But we cannot simply build a huge stockpile of PPE - it has a shelf-life. It degrades. So you can stockpile, but you need to regularly turn that stock over (i.e. ship it into service and get fresh).
And yes - it would make sense to have scale manufacture in the UK, except that the last 30 (40?) years of industrial policy in the is that we are a service economy and buy cheaper goods manufactured in cheaper countries.
Boris is less Napoleon I and more Napoleon III. But nobody sang a song about the Battle of Sedan
To be fair on Napoleon III - he did run the country pretty well for 20 years, with financial and industrial reforms/expansion. There were even quite a bit of progressive legislation on labour laws etc.
It's the same fantasist loser -- winner -- fantasist loser story arc. Compressed and without the economic reforms. And a less dramatic downfall (perhaps!)
Johnson’s shadow whipping operation pledged to MPs a “total clear-out” of No10.
But so far, only his principal private secretary Martin Reynolds is expected to move on. Some No10 say chief of staff Dan Rosenfield also in conversations about a new role.
I do not know enough about the criminal justice system in England to comment in detail but the consequences for trials in Scotland of Covid have been severe. So many court days have been lost. The last trial I was set to do, where the complainers and the accused had been waiting 2 years for the case to come to trial, collapsed before the first witness was in the box because the principal complainer had come down with Covid. Trials with multiple accused have been impossible for the last 2 years, they simply require too many people in the same room.
In Scotland the High Court and the Sheriff court have used cinemas as Jury centres keeping juries remote from the court and able to maintain social distancing. In every trial this has added at least a day to the case because the first day is used selecting the jury who then have to attend the Jury centre the following morning. Almost every trial I have done in this period has had technical problems with the connection between the centre and the court. This becomes inevitable if the witness is also giving evidence remotely, which is often the case in sex trials.
The system is trying hard. We are running 19 High Court trial courts at once. This is unprecedented. I was talked into taking on another one yesterday due to start on the 16th. Bodies for both the defence and prosecution are quite hard to find. Defence counsel are racing from trial to trial and the system is having to accomodate them, recognising the importance of their role.
At the less serious end there was nearly 18 months with no trials except for those in custody. The processing capacity of JP and Sheriff courts have been massively reduced by the Covid regulations which limit the number of people allowed in the building at any one time, inevitably causing down time where something comes to an end prematurely and where witnesses have to be timetabled. It is really hard to get through the business in circumstances like that.
I mention all of this because I am not really convinced that the delays in matters coming to trial are being caused by the reasons @Cyclefree says. The mass departure of young criminal barristers and experienced solicitors capable of preparing a case because they simply cannot make a living on ridiculous legal aid rates will certainly be having an effect. But I would be astonished if the lack of court rooms was the problem.
As in so many other areas of life we need to get back to normal with the restrictions removed. And then we need to catch up the backlog. Its going to be a hell of a slog.
Covid has caused real problems in the criminal justice system. But it was on its knees before that and so the measures needed by Covid have exacerbated problems.
The cuts to legal aid, the inept privatisation of the probation service (which had to be reversed), the disclosure failures which harmed so many rape trials, the cuts to sitting hours, the budget cuts - all of these happened before Covid.
The failure in the police were not caused by Covid.
The failure in local authorities over child sexual abuse were not caused by Covid.
Covid will be used as an excuse for all sorts of failings. It will have played a part but its part will be hugely exaggerated and, if we let the government get away with it, it will be used as an all-purpose excuse for all sorts of failings and problems which are in reality down to deliberate decisions by government ministers.
As I say I am not in a position to comment in detail on the English situation but I have read many articles about junior barristers simply leaving the profession because they cannot make ends meet. We have seen the same effect in Scotland where legal aid rates for criminal work have not been increased since 1991.
I'm seriously surprised we have anything that looks like a legal system for criminal work - the pay is utterly crap...
Not at the top end. Criminal QCs earn about £250,000 a year ie more than the PM and comfortably in the top 1% of earners.
However junior criminal barristers starting out often earn little more than minimum wage, criminal solicitors not much more, it is pay at the lower end that needs addressing
The lower end is 99 percent of the profession. But the big problem is attracting new entrants.
Indeed, when NQ city solicitors and commercial barristers can earn £50,000+, well above the average salary it is the new entrants who need to be attracted.
If you are very good at it though and stick the course you can still prosper in criminal law
'Discouraging' though to do 3 years of Uni, plus (1 think) a couple of training years and have to live on minimum wage. Especially when prior to 2011 or thereabouts you KNOW you'd have got more.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
I can believe the 54 letters threshold may soon be breached but, given how long it is taking to get there, even in the face of such compelling evidence that Johnson should go, the prospects of him losing the VONC must be very low.
Or am I missing something?
Different calculation. Putting letters in is about ditching him now. If it comes to the VONC, it will be about whether he should be ditched before the GE. But you might be right that there's not a clear appetite to do the deed.
Russia's Deputy UN Ambassador, Dmitry Polyanskiy, never a diplomat to hold back, tells Sky News: "There is always room for diplomacy, but frankly, we don't trust British diplomacy. I think in recent years, British diplomacy has shown that it is absolutely worthless. https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1488798946868842502
I still trust Britain over his shithole regime.
Russian diplomacy reminds me of the prank the Nazi leaders played on Von Ribbentrop - who was a bit of a Billy-no-mates.
They game him an elaborate box for his birthday. With a copy of all the treaties and agreements he'd negotiated in it. It turned out to be a bit empty, because Hitler had broken most of them, so those ones were out....
"A German joke is no laughing matter."
When the Windsors changed the family name in the middle of WWI, the Kaiser said he was going to get the court theatre to put on a performance of the Merry Wifes of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
Some say that 12 million dead in WWI was a big price to pay for the only funny joke the Kaiser ever told. Others.....
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
When the government practice open corruption and ask no questions tenders with no penalty clauses for non-delivery, why should we expect them to run a proper legal system? Where is the benefit?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
However, you fail to remember where we were in April/May last year. We needed PPE. In this case - as in war - the government had to do whatever it could to get PPE. It did.
According to the article below, the government had 8,000 offers from suppliers of PPE. That is a massive number, when decisions needed making immediately, sometimes to the day, or the kit would not be got. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52369223
Here's a sad truth for you: Labour under Starmer would have done exactly the same thing, because not to do so would have been a grossly wrong.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
That's the issue here but again it's hidden alongside other issues so people don't focus on the important one.
In fact this is an incredibly obvious playbook - we get given the complete picture (PPE, BBL fraud) and then when people pick up the real fixable problems that demonstrate a real screw up that they were responsible flaw they change the conversation to a different issue that was revealed at the same time.
PPE has - mates without experience allowed to purchase anything at vast expense, expensive proper PPE purchased when supply was less than demand and fraud. BBL has - clearly fraudulent loans (companies created after the scheme began), dodgy loans and failed firms.
In both cases there is a clear area that could be investigated but it can't be because other issues are used to hide and sidetrack from the outright fraud.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
The government got the PPE. Your approach would not have got it.
(As for Labour not letting their mates get advantage; the history of Labour rather goes against this.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
I'd suggest in a massive emergency sub-standard PPE is better than no PPE at all.
My mum and a like-minded coterie of competent senior citizens teamed up to make PPE for Macclesfield hospital. Facemasks, largely, IIRC - dozens and dozens of them. Not technically difficult, but more than I could do. I very much doubt that had a CE mark on it. Because it was an emergency, we were getting through PPE faster than it could be procured, any PPE was better than no PPE. Did it eventually get used? I don't know. But had we got down to a stock of zero I'd suggest it would have been pretty churlish to turn it down.
So did my wife. But her understanding was it was not for use by frontline staff. The ICU nurse was not wearing a mask made from a Super Mario Brothers tee shirt.
I am sure a lot of the wastage figure is accounting resolution. If it is not I want to know where my £9b went!
Nasir Afzal devastating re Boris/Saville this morning. Boris really should be in big trouble over this, particularly because of the impact it has on his victims as a consequence of him reopening it.
Some in the media seem to think it's a suggestion from Crosby, following his dead cat strategy.
But the idea of 'dead cat' is that you get people talking about something else, even if it's bad.
Trying to distract from the matter of the PM being a big liar, by telling another big lie, isn't going to work the same way.
Yet Crosby has supposedly been saying he's not going to get involved and they've got one of his underlings. If anything it's from the Crosby playbook but executed poorly. I don't think Lynton Crosby would use this particular dead cat. I expect he would have got the PM to hold a reshuffle.
I can believe the 54 letters threshold may soon be breached but, given how long it is taking to get there, even in the face of such compelling evidence that Johnson should go, the prospects of him losing the VONC must be very low.
Or am I missing something?
You may be right but the letters are public, I'm told the vote itself isn't. See the Alastair Meeks piece (or was it Nick Palmer?) about where he thinks the various MPs stand.
I don't think the letters are public.
Sorry, you're right.
I meant: the letters are visible to Graham Brady (which must also raise the prospect of others knowing the names) but the votes themselves are I believe anonymous.
I can believe the 54 letters threshold may soon be breached but, given how long it is taking to get there, even in the face of such compelling evidence that Johnson should go, the prospects of him losing the VONC must be very low.
Or am I missing something?
You may be right but the letters are public, I'm told the vote itself isn't. See the Alastair Meeks piece (or was it Nick Palmer?) about where he thinks the various MPs stand.
I don't think the letters are public.
The letters are only known to Graham Brady and most certainly are not public, otherwise some conservative mps could fear for their future prospects
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. How the governing system deal with that is a choice. As Monday's events - and the actions of the Speaker - showed, we now have a system which rules those lies in order, and suspends from the Commons MPs who call out those lies.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
If I was him in question 1 I would ask Johnson to state categorically for the parliamentary record if he will release the Gray report in full and without delay. And if he prevaricates at all I would begin question 2 by giving notice of a parliamentary motion to compel him to. That’s a motion he would so easily win that Johnson would cave before the vote.
He can then follow up by forcing the issue of Johnson’s prior statements to the house, inviting him to correct the Parliamentary record, given he has accepted the Gray Update in full. And if he refuses to, turn it over to the Speaker. And if the Speaker refuses to (which he probably would the wet flannel), then give notice of a further parliamentary motion along the lines of “This House condemns the Prime Minister for misleading parliament”. Force the Tory rebels to put their cards on the table.
Personally I think it’s time for Starmer to go for the jugular. It will be a far more compelling narrative for him if he is the one that directly sets in motion Johnson’s exit than to let his future opponent claim the credit for being the new broom cleaning up the mess.
Agree.
I don't know if it's been discussed but currently it takes 54 Tory MPs and then a successful VONC by the same Tory MPs to remove him. Instead why can't there be a VONC in him in Parliament. It is single step and only requires just over 35 Tory MPs to vote against or even to be achieved with a few more MPs abstaining.
Or a VONC in the government. Typically that results in a GE, but it doesn't have to if the Tories can form a new government. That is not uncommon in Europe under PR and only doesn't happen here because a loss of confidence isn't normally recoverable, but with a 70+ majority is currently.
A Commons VONC in him as an individual would (a) have no direct effect in making him resign; and (b) result in any Tory who votes against him being kicked out of the party and therefore having no say in a party VONC. So at best ineffective, at worst counterproductive.
On the second point, it's too risky until the DACOP Bill has passed into law. 14 days isn't enough for the party to elect a new leader (maybe a coronation could be arranged), and without either that or him resigning and advising HMQ to appoint someone (Raab?) in his place there's a GE. On the old boundaries.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
I don't think they were, they supposedly ended their tryst once it became clear that one of them might end up being PM.
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
When the government practice open corruption and ask no questions tenders with no penalty clauses for non-delivery, why should we expect them to run a proper legal system? Where is the benefit?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
However, you fail to remember where we were in April/May last year. We needed PPE. In this case - as in war - the government had to do whatever it could to get PPE. It did.
According to the article below, the government had 8,000 offers from suppliers of PPE. That is a massive number, when decisions needed making immediately, sometimes to the day, or the kit would not be got. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52369223
Here's a sad truth for you: Labour under Starmer would have done exactly the same thing, because not to do so would have been a grossly wrong.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
That's the issue here but again it's hidden alongside other issues so people don't focus on the important one.
In fact this is an incredibly obvious playbook - we get given the complete picture (PPE, BBL fraud) and then when people pick up the real fixable problems that demonstrate a real screw up that they were responsible flaw they change the conversation to a different issue that was revealed at the same time.
PPE has - mates without experience allowed to purchase anything at vast expense, expensive proper PPE purchased when supply was less than demand and fraud. BBL has - clearly fraudulent loans (companies created after the scheme began), dodgy loans and failed firms.
In both cases there is a clear area that could be investigated but it can't be because other issues are used to hide and sidetrack from the outright fraud.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
The government got the PPE. Your approach would not have got it.
(As for Labour not letting their mates get advantage; the history of Labour rather goes against this.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
In that case we should have had the non delivery clause or we should have paid a finders fee and asked him to forward a deal with the non delivery clause. One way or another you endeavour to pass the risk up the chain.
At lot of this should be going in to a (very expensive) lessons learnt and lets get prepared for the next disaster folder with a playbook on how to deal with things. But sadly it won't so we will have spent £bns and learnt nothing to avoid making the same mistakes next time round.
And if the sellers were not willing to sign a non-delivery clause, because they would have handed the money onto others?
You'd end up with no PPE.
We'll end up doing the same thing next time, because not doing it was unthinkable.
No we shouldn't because 1 - we should have more PPE stored for future usage. 2 - we can use Brexit to bring manufacturing back onshore (hey it may cost more but so what Brexit and jobs).
If we end up having to purchase it in an emergency again then next time round some ministers should be facing treason charges for gross stupidity.
We got a lot wrong in the initial stages, and we can all say that we should have held suppliers to account for not supplying or for supplying poor quality. I get that. But we should remember the circumstances at the time, the sheer desperation for PPE. I mean we tracked individual planes bringing stuff in for gods sake. And our erstwhile friends, the French, showed their true colours are opted to 'shaft' us at a time of need.
But we cannot simply build a huge stockpile of PPE - it has a shelf-life. It degrades. So you can stockpile, but you need to regularly turn that stock over (i.e. ship it into service and get fresh).
And yes - it would make sense to have scale manufacture in the UK, except that the last 30 (40?) years of industrial policy in the is that we are a service economy and buy cheaper goods manufactured in cheaper countries.
Was there not at one time a proposal for a back-up stock of PPE, which was binned ..... the proposal I mean, not the PPE. IIRC it was binned by Hunt when at DoH.
I can believe the 54 letters threshold may soon be breached but, given how long it is taking to get there, even in the face of such compelling evidence that Johnson should go, the prospects of him losing the VONC must be very low.
Or am I missing something?
You may be right but the letters are public, I'm told the vote itself isn't. See the Alastair Meeks piece (or was it Nick Palmer?) about where he thinks the various MPs stand.
I don't think the letters are public.
The letters are only known to Graham Brady and most certainly are not public, therwise some conservative mps could fear for their future prospects
Any chance Graham Brady is sitting on 300 letters and not telling anyone just for laughs.
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
When the government practice open corruption and ask no questions tenders with no penalty clauses for non-delivery, why should we expect them to run a proper legal system? Where is the benefit?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
However, you fail to remember where we were in April/May last year. We needed PPE. In this case - as in war - the government had to do whatever it could to get PPE. It did.
According to the article below, the government had 8,000 offers from suppliers of PPE. That is a massive number, when decisions needed making immediately, sometimes to the day, or the kit would not be got. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52369223
Here's a sad truth for you: Labour under Starmer would have done exactly the same thing, because not to do so would have been a grossly wrong.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
That's the issue here but again it's hidden alongside other issues so people don't focus on the important one.
In fact this is an incredibly obvious playbook - we get given the complete picture (PPE, BBL fraud) and then when people pick up the real fixable problems that demonstrate a real screw up that they were responsible flaw they change the conversation to a different issue that was revealed at the same time.
PPE has - mates without experience allowed to purchase anything at vast expense, expensive proper PPE purchased when supply was less than demand and fraud. BBL has - clearly fraudulent loans (companies created after the scheme began), dodgy loans and failed firms.
In both cases there is a clear area that could be investigated but it can't be because other issues are used to hide and sidetrack from the outright fraud.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
The government got the PPE. Your approach would not have got it.
(As for Labour not letting their mates get advantage; the history of Labour rather goes against this.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
I'd suggest in a massive emergency sub-standard PPE is better than no PPE at all.
My mum and a like-minded coterie of competent senior citizens teamed up to make PPE for Macclesfield hospital. Facemasks, largely, IIRC - dozens and dozens of them. Not technically difficult, but more than I could do. I very much doubt that had a CE mark on it. Because it was an emergency, we were getting through PPE faster than it could be procured, any PPE was better than no PPE. Did it eventually get used? I don't know. But had we got down to a stock of zero I'd suggest it would have been pretty churlish to turn it down.
So did my wife. But her understanding was it was not for use by frontline staff. The ICU nurse was not wearing a mask made from a Super Mario Brothers tee shirt.
I am sure a lot of the wastage figure is accounting resolution. If it is not I want to know where my £9b went!
In particular, face shields were being made on an amateur workshop piece work basis. And were then used in medical settings, in some cases.
Basically, a simple design was worked out and the making of the parts was distributed to those with tools and skills. A community workshop I am a member of had all the 3D printers making parts for these.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
Can those on here critical of Boris Johnson please desist in calling him by his preferred cuddly stage name "Boris". Under the circumstances "Boris Johnson" "Mr Johnson" or preferably simply "Johnson" would seem far more appropriate. He is not a lovable uncle, a music hall comedian or the old fool down the pub, he is supposed to be the Prime Minister.
He is a malevolent politician, he is not our friend.
Can we still use Bozo (as in clown) because he is one?
If you want to look like a prat, sure. You can make it even worse by capitalising the Z.
1. Do you know when your birthday is? 2. Do you know where you were? 3. Were you at a party?
Wouldn’t 3 be better as “did you celebrate your birthday”?
If he says “I cannot tell you that because police investigation” then he looks ridiculous as celebrating covers a range of things that don’t necessarily include a “party”. Also we already know he had a sing song and cake.
If he says “no” then he is lying to parliament.
If he says “yes” then headlines are “Boris admits he celebrates his birthday”.
I can believe the 54 letters threshold may soon be breached but, given how long it is taking to get there, even in the face of such compelling evidence that Johnson should go, the prospects of him losing the VONC must be very low.
Or am I missing something?
Different calculation. Putting letters in is about ditching him now. If it comes to the VONC, it will be about whether he should be ditched before the GE. But you might be right that there's not a clear appetite to do the deed.
There is also the fact that once it is disclosed there are 54+ letters in, that another big pile will follow within minutes.
"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."
And
"The avalanche has already started; It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
Are ferrets notorious for having a lot of sex?!
I thought they were fighters, not lovers
Bonobos would be a better analogy. Perhaps the only species - apart from man - to employ sex toys
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
The other factor here is that in any fallout, public sympathy will be overwhelmingly with her. That is quite a big change from any point in history up until now, where someone in Johnsons position could just discard and ignore her without any significant consequences.
I've said before that ultimately they will fall down together. But until that point we are stuck with them. The nature of Johnsons victory in 2019 makes it unlikely that the Conservative party will unseat him as they have an existential fear of a early 2019 style collapse. It will be the public that ultimately reject Boris and Carrie, and on their current performance, it will be in a spectacular way.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
Wasn't that why a friend of Carrie's was appointed to a Press job? To keep an eye on the female staff.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
Nasir Afzal devastating re Boris/Saville this morning. Boris really should be in big trouble over this, particularly because of the impact it has on his victims as a consequence of him reopening it.
Some in the media seem to think it's a suggestion from Crosby, following his dead cat strategy.
But the idea of 'dead cat' is that you get people talking about something else, even if it's bad.
Trying to distract from the matter of the PM being a big liar, by telling another big lie, isn't going to work the same way.
But it is consistent with the Multiple gaffe theory
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
When the government practice open corruption and ask no questions tenders with no penalty clauses for non-delivery, why should we expect them to run a proper legal system? Where is the benefit?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
However, you fail to remember where we were in April/May last year. We needed PPE. In this case - as in war - the government had to do whatever it could to get PPE. It did.
According to the article below, the government had 8,000 offers from suppliers of PPE. That is a massive number, when decisions needed making immediately, sometimes to the day, or the kit would not be got. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52369223
Here's a sad truth for you: Labour under Starmer would have done exactly the same thing, because not to do so would have been a grossly wrong.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
That's the issue here but again it's hidden alongside other issues so people don't focus on the important one.
In fact this is an incredibly obvious playbook - we get given the complete picture (PPE, BBL fraud) and then when people pick up the real fixable problems that demonstrate a real screw up that they were responsible flaw they change the conversation to a different issue that was revealed at the same time.
PPE has - mates without experience allowed to purchase anything at vast expense, expensive proper PPE purchased when supply was less than demand and fraud. BBL has - clearly fraudulent loans (companies created after the scheme began), dodgy loans and failed firms.
In both cases there is a clear area that could be investigated but it can't be because other issues are used to hide and sidetrack from the outright fraud.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
The government got the PPE. Your approach would not have got it.
(As for Labour not letting their mates get advantage; the history of Labour rather goes against this.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
I'd suggest in a massive emergency sub-standard PPE is better than no PPE at all.
My mum and a like-minded coterie of competent senior citizens teamed up to make PPE for Macclesfield hospital. Facemasks, largely, IIRC - dozens and dozens of them. Not technically difficult, but more than I could do. I very much doubt that had a CE mark on it. Because it was an emergency, we were getting through PPE faster than it could be procured, any PPE was better than no PPE. Did it eventually get used? I don't know. But had we got down to a stock of zero I'd suggest it would have been pretty churlish to turn it down.
So did my wife. But her understanding was it was not for use by frontline staff. The ICU nurse was not wearing a mask made from a Super Mario Brothers tee shirt.
I am sure a lot of the wastage figure is accounting resolution. If it is not I want to know where my £9b went!
In particular, face shields were being made on an amateur workshop piece work basis. And were then used in medical settings, in some cases.
Basically, a simple design was worked out and the making of the parts was distributed to those with tools and skills. A community workshop I am a member of had all the 3D printers making parts for these.
Christ. Remember when everyone was making ventilators in their garden sheds?!!! Like Chinese peasants smelting iron in their backyards to please Mao
Already the early stages of Covid feel like some mad fairy tale. A lunatic and horrible war in the distant past
Guess what the latest threat is to Tory backbenchers thinking of toppling the PM? That @BorisJohnson would 'do a Corbyn': fight a leadership ballot and win with the backing of party members.
I thought this was just a hyufd fantasy, apparently not
I didn't think that was possible under Tory rules. The incumbent faces a VONC, if they lose that is it. They are not allowed to be a candidate in the new election. If they win they are, in theory, safe for a year but May showed that is not necessarily the case in practice.
It doesn't have to be true, or possible, it just has to scare enough MPs into inaction.
Maybe he's telling people he'd go directly to the membership and have them request an EGM on the leadership as a way to change the rules (I think this was part of what brought May down).
The details don't matter. Rules are not inviolable. Doubt and fear are Johnson's allies now.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
Are ferrets notorious for having a lot of sex?!
I thought they were fighters, not lovers
Bonobos would be a better analogy. Perhaps the only species - apart from man - to employ sex toys
Or dolphins. They are absolute FILTH
Do you have any bonobo clients? How do they rate versus Albanian taxi drivers as a source of political insight?
Can those on here critical of Boris Johnson please desist in calling him by his preferred cuddly stage name "Boris". Under the circumstances "Boris Johnson" "Mr Johnson" or preferably simply "Johnson" would seem far more appropriate. He is not a lovable uncle, a music hall comedian or the old fool down the pub, he is supposed to be the Prime Minister.
He is a malevolent politician, he is not our friend.
Surely better to call him Boris and irrevocably tarnish his persona, connecting it to the current shitshow?
No, it demonstrates we are playing along with the lie.
Don't forget his friends, family and close associates refer to "Boris" as Al, or Alexander.
"Boris" is more uniquely identifying. Politics already has one Bad Al...
@HYUFD re my reply to you at 8.55. I asked a couple of questions and I am genuinely interested in your reply as you know more than me on the processes regarding parliamentary procedures and Tory PM elections.
On the issue of police violence against women, an indication of the lack of seriousness with which the government treats this is the inquiry which was set up after the Everard murder.
The chair is a distinguished Scottish prosecutor - Dame Angiolini. @DavidL will know more about her I expect. A bit odd though to have a Scottish lawyer in charge given the Terms of Reference relate to the actions of an English police force. But still good so far.
The rest - not so much:
1. It is non-statutory so its powers are necessarily limited 2. The ToR are very limited. It covers Couzens and what he was up to and why he was hired etc. But what it does not do is look at - - sexual offence allegations against other officers - why Met officers found guilty of sexual misconduct have kept their jobs - the circumstances around other Met officers found guilty of sex offences, including child abuse and pornography - How many officers are disciplined for these sorts of offences et etc.
So an opportunity to have a comprehensive look at the recruitment, training, disciplinary process and general culture of the police has been lost. The inquiry is proceeding on the assumption that Couzens was just one very stinky apple.
That is the wrong assumption to make - as yesterday's IOPC report says - and as even a cursory look at the number of officers convicted or charged of some pretty revolting sexual abuse claims would show.
The authorities simply do not take this issue seriously enough. That is why as one policewoman interviewed this morning on the Today programme said: "We get failure after failure. But no accountability."
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
Sending troops into Ukraine now risks WW3.
Sending British troops to Nato states Estonia and Latvia though as Boris is doing is a sensible precaution
I don't dispute your conclusion. I say that as I am not a military strategist like you and Johnson.
I suspect that Ellwood, be he right or wrong, has researched Putin and his likely end game in far more detail than you, me or Johnson.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
There is an extraordinary, if perhaps inadvertent, moment of honesty at the end of this clip with Michael Gove. “The whole point of the Met investigation,” he says, “is that you don’t have to ask and I don’t have to ask.” I bet it is. ~AA
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
Comments
The contract piece is simple. We will pay you £107m (a contract value seemingly used a lot), you will deliver the contract. Who you purchase supplies from to fulfil the contract is not our business (and we know that they won't have paid £107m). Non-delivery of the contract will trigger repayment by you.
Thats it. The contract is between the government and PPECo. When PPE co supplies crap, they get asked to repay. If they can't repay then there are standard procedures for such things. We didn't even try - and these aren't all companies that were created solely for this and wound up.
You say "small in the scheme of things". Sure - £107m with no questions asked is small change for the government. So is it ok for them to hand £107m to a friend for nothing? Why not do it again - what does it matter?
This is very literally the open corruption I am referring to. Not the procurement of PPE. The way that they handed vast sums of cash to the right people and did not expect or care whether anything was supplied.
However junior criminal barristers starting out often earn little more than minimum wage, criminal solicitors not much more, it is pay at the lower end that needs addressing
Now seen some of that interview is on the news.
If what Nasir says is accurate, and I see no reason why it isn't, then Starmer was not in anyway involved in the cock up and was key in sorting it out.
Boris should be asked to make the same comment outside of parliament.
“I am worried that there is a large gap between what MPs are expecting and what Boris is actually minded to do.”
@FinancialTimes analysis https://www.ft.com/content/c82e4adf-a95d-4312-b909-a128fe637299
Fast track no tender procurement where the contracts are delivered is one thing. Questionable but if it is ultimately successful then you allow it. Fast track no tender procurement where contracts are *not* delivered is something else.
The disposable stuff is often fragile, has a shelf life and still has disposal issue.
In the past, issues with toughness of materials and decontamination made non-disposable seem like a good idea.
However, we have lived through a materials and chemical revolution (and still are). In a number of industries there is non-disposable PPE manufactured that is lighter and tougher than ever before.
When I see picture of medical staff wearing an array of disposable masks, face shields, gowns etc - all with massive gaps.... I think of the next bug. Something that is truly airborne.
I am not bothered about whether people want to take me seriously or not, I just post as I see it
How much do we pay to have manufacturing permanently capable of making 20-times the 'normal' levels in a rapid surge?
The charges of gross stupidity are those who were screeching for PPE two years ago, and who are now saying they should have been got by other means - in reality meaning they wouldn't have got them.
https://youtu.be/Sj_9CiNkkn4
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
Mr Ellwood, the chairman of the defence committee, told Sky News the ongoing row over alleged parties at Downing Street was "horrible" for Conservative MPs to continue to have to defend to the British public, and attacked "rushed policy announcements" from No 10.
"I don't think the Prime Minister realises how worried colleagues are in every corner of the party, backbenchers and ministers alike that this is all only going one way," Mr Ellwood told Sky News.
"I believe it's time for the Prime Minister to take a grip of this, he himself should call a vote of confidence rather than waiting for the inevitable 54 letters to be eventually submitted. It's time to resolve this completely, so the party can get on with governing.
"And yes, I know the next question you'll ask, I will be submitting my letter today to the 1922 Committee."
He also criticised Boris Johnson's claims about Sir Keir Starmer in relation to Jimmy Savile on Monday, adding: "We must seek to improve our standards."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/02/boris-johnson-downing-street-cabinet-sue-gray-russia/
I think this is 'it' folks ... domino effect coming up.
Why do I think that? Because Ellwood's right: this can't go on.
On reflection, I think this is actually YOU. No one could be this consistently unfunny. So: you have my sympathies
If you are very good at it though and stick the course you can still prosper in criminal law
We have de-escalation taught and formally part of the operating procedures in every force.
In the US, there was a case of a UK policeman who got a job there. On his first training day he was pulled up for trying to de-escalate a situation. Because he had failed to "Dominate" to the situation.....
Put simply: in the crisis, we could either get the PPE with some waste and fraud. Or we could not get the PPE. You are trying to single out the 'bad' contracts after the event, when it would have been difficult to single them out in a crisis were every hour counted.
It is palpably wrong. Even in terms of known unknowns, she could destroy Johnson in the next 3 minutes by saying that Johnson was at a flat party. The reason she doesn't is that at the moment that destroys her too. The media know a lot more than they publish - they have known about these parties all along, what with one of them being a leaving do for a bloke who went to the Sun.
And Johnson being the shit he is there is no doubt there's unknown unknowns by the bucketload to which his wife is privy
So there's not much scope for the 10% types to get themselves involved in the process.
My mum and a like-minded coterie of competent senior citizens teamed up to make PPE for Macclesfield hospital. Facemasks, largely, IIRC - dozens and dozens of them. Not technically difficult, but more than I could do. I very much doubt that had a CE mark on it. Because it was an emergency, we were getting through PPE faster than it could be procured, any PPE was better than no PPE. Did it eventually get used? I don't know. But had we got down to a stock of zero I'd suggest it would have been pretty churlish to turn it down.
1. Do you know when your birthday is?
2. Do you know where you were?
3. Were you at a party?
In the scenario where he had already been rejected by the MPs, he would be toast. So it's a bluff.
Or am I missing something?
But so far, only his principal private secretary Martin Reynolds is expected to move on. Some No10 say chief of staff Dan Rosenfield also in conversations about a new role.
https://www.ft.com/content/c82e4adf-a95d-4312-b909-a128fe637299
If we went for option a. we could do it c. competently or d. incompetently
Nobody understands why you rule out a. and c. as a possibility
Sending British troops to Nato states Estonia and Latvia though as Boris is doing is a sensible precaution
They game him an elaborate box for his birthday. With a copy of all the treaties and agreements he'd negotiated in it. It turned out to be a bit empty, because Hitler had broken most of them, so those ones were out....
I'm afraid your 'diehard' approach often crosses over into parody. Do you not realise how ludicrous it often seems especially when you keep moving the goalposts? A good example: Labour lead "not 10%" then "Labour not on 40%" then it became "there are only 2 pollsters I now believe"
No one should be so diehard about any political party. Recognise your Party's faults (which at the moment are considerable in the Johnson case). I'm never so diehard to trip out Labour rubbish on here. They still have problems, especially a nasty left-wing element, anti-semitic traits and a frankly fairly dour leader (although he's been good lately).
But, then, I wouldn't just vote for a donkey wearing a red rosette. I'd vote LibDem tactically, and have done a number of times, and I've voted Green.
No one Party has a monopoly of truth or a right way of doing things and politics as a whole, and this forum with it, would be a better place if we recognised that.
Burley quoted it as 'a dropped mike moment'
Yet Labour members re elected him
The best you could hope to achieve in terms of policing and criminal justice policy is something like what was achieved in the Netherlands and Norway, but this involves the adoption of 'soft' criminal justice policies which the British public overwhelmingly reject.
The current situation is just very unsatisfactory and full of vast contradictions. The impulse to blame the police for the situation is strong, and some of the criticisms of the British police are clearly justified, but they are just one part of a bigger structure.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0013zsn
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/boris-johnson-gaffes-media-strategy-v5e9c2a5b
Unbelievable we once thought this funny
But we cannot simply build a huge stockpile of PPE - it has a shelf-life. It degrades. So you can stockpile, but you need to regularly turn that stock over (i.e. ship it into service and get fresh).
And yes - it would make sense to have scale manufacture in the UK, except that the last 30 (40?) years of industrial policy in the is that we are a service economy and buy cheaper goods manufactured in cheaper countries.
Especially when prior to 2011 or thereabouts you KNOW you'd have got more.
Some say that 12 million dead in WWI was a big price to pay for the only funny joke the Kaiser ever told. Others.....
I am sure a lot of the wastage figure is accounting resolution. If it is not I want to know where my £9b went!
I meant: the letters are visible to Graham Brady (which must also raise the prospect of others knowing the names) but the votes themselves are I believe anonymous.
On the second point, it's too risky until the DACOP Bill has passed into law. 14 days isn't enough for the party to elect a new leader (maybe a coronation could be arranged), and without either that or him resigning and advising HMQ to appoint someone (Raab?) in his place there's a GE. On the old boundaries.
IIRC it was binned by Hunt when at DoH.
Basically, a simple design was worked out and the making of the parts was distributed to those with tools and skills. A community workshop I am a member of had all the 3D printers making parts for these.
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
If he says “I cannot tell you that because police investigation” then he looks ridiculous as celebrating covers a range of things that don’t necessarily include a “party”. Also we already know he had a sing song and cake.
If he says “no” then he is lying to parliament.
If he says “yes” then headlines are “Boris admits he celebrates his birthday”.
"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."
And
"The avalanche has already started; It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
I thought they were fighters, not lovers
Bonobos would be a better analogy. Perhaps the only species - apart from man - to employ sex toys
Or dolphins. They are absolute FILTH
Nothing on the website
IIRC 1989 when he became Foreign Secretary.
I've said before that ultimately they will fall down together. But until that point we are stuck with them. The nature of Johnsons victory in 2019 makes it unlikely that the Conservative party will unseat him as they have an existential fear of a early 2019 style collapse. It will be the public that ultimately reject Boris and Carrie, and on their current performance, it will be in a spectacular way.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tory-mp-tobias-ellwood-reveals-he-will-be-submitting-letter-of-no-confidence-in-pm/ar-AATofel?ocid=entnewsntp
Where else can you get a 25% return in over a fortnight?
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/01/16/will-boris-johnson-announce-his-resignation-before-the-end-of-january/
He's not leaving Downing Street unless it is in handcuffs.
Already the early stages of Covid feel like some mad fairy tale. A lunatic and horrible war in the distant past
Maybe he's telling people he'd go directly to the membership and have them request an EGM on the leadership as a way to change the rules (I think this was part of what brought May down).
The details don't matter. Rules are not inviolable. Doubt and fear are Johnson's allies now.
The chair is a distinguished Scottish prosecutor - Dame Angiolini. @DavidL will know more about her I expect. A bit odd though to have a Scottish lawyer in charge given the Terms of Reference relate to the actions of an English police force. But still good so far.
The rest - not so much:
1. It is non-statutory so its powers are necessarily limited
2. The ToR are very limited. It covers Couzens and what he was up to and why he was hired etc. But what it does not do is look at -
- sexual offence allegations against other officers
- why Met officers found guilty of sexual misconduct have kept their jobs
- the circumstances around other Met officers found guilty of sex offences, including child abuse and pornography
- How many officers are disciplined for these sorts of offences et etc.
So an opportunity to have a comprehensive look at the recruitment, training, disciplinary process and general culture of the police has been lost. The inquiry is proceeding on the assumption that Couzens was just one very stinky apple.
That is the wrong assumption to make - as yesterday's IOPC report says - and as even a cursory look at the number of officers convicted or charged of some pretty revolting sexual abuse claims would show.
The authorities simply do not take this issue seriously enough. That is why as one policewoman interviewed this morning on the Today programme said: "We get failure after failure. But no accountability."
I suspect that Ellwood, be he right or wrong, has researched Putin and his likely end game in far more detail than you, me or Johnson.
Is he right? I don't know.
"How can the Defence secretary provide assurance to Ukraine, when our own PM..."
https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1488782886362824705/video/1
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him
In Number 10 even more than he does