On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Why? Diminishing returns innit?
You underestimate the enormity of what has happened in the past less-than-24-hours. It is now literally and without exaggeration the case that Johnson could hoick his breeks down and shit on the despatch box with absolute impunity.
The volume of FPNs increase the fine amount, so it is isn't difficult to imagine a scenario of 'Boris Johnson fined £10,000 for his sixth breach of the rules.'
That will prove to be awkward for him.
If that's the way the law works its a badly designed law.
If someone commits a serious crime that results in prison, or multiple of such crimes sentenced together, then the prison sentence tends to be served concurrently not consecutively or exponentially increasing sentences.
It makes sense to have FPN for past offenders be escalating, but only for breaches made after the first FPN was resolved surely? While ignorance is no excuse, if someone didn't realise they were breaking the law and did the same thing as part of their routine every morning then to stack exponential fines years later is quite worrying if normal people are being treated like that.
Boris should have a serious word with the person ultimately reponsible for the law, then
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Interest rates on student loans to hit 12% in England. Outrageous.
Covered on previous thread.....outrageous for the country as we ultimately will all pick up the tab when the loan isn't repaid in full, basically irrelevant on the level of the individual student.
For a sizeable proportion, it’s a moot point anyway as they’ll never pay them off until they are automatically written off.
The current student loan regime is pretty much a graduate tax in all but name really. The sheer size of the borrowing and the unfavourable interest rate make it incredibly difficult to clear the balance. As much as the top up fee system before it was a blow to students in the late noughties, it was much more realistic that repayment would eventually be made and the interest rate was much less punishing being linked as it is to BOE base or inflation, whichever is lower.
A key change (not announced as part of the original press release) is that the minimum earnings threshold going forward is only going to increase by RPI and not average earnings.
In the long run (which 30/40 years of the loan is) average earnings should beat RPI, so more "tax" is going to be paid going forward.
And for middling professionals it is a marginal tax rate of 42%. (20+13+9). For a very long time.
The systems aids: the rich, expats, the feckless, the unemployable.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Why? Diminishing returns innit?
You underestimate the enormity of what has happened in the past less-than-24-hours. It is now literally and without exaggeration the case that Johnson could hoick his breeks down and shit on the despatch box with absolute impunity.
The volume of FPNs increase the fine amount, so it is isn't difficult to imagine a scenario of 'Boris Johnson fined £10,000 for his sixth breach of the rules.'
That will prove to be awkward for him.
If that's the way the law works its a badly designed law.
If someone commits a serious crime that results in prison, or multiple of such crimes sentenced together, then the prison sentence tends to be served concurrently not consecutively or exponentially increasing sentences.
It makes sense to have FPN for past offenders be escalating, but only for breaches made after the first FPN was resolved surely? While ignorance is no excuse, if someone didn't realise they were breaking the law and did the same thing as part of their routine every morning then to stack exponential fines years later is quite worrying if normal people are being treated like that.
"if someone didn't realise they were breaking the law"
Hardly relevant to the case where 'someone' wrote the thing, mind.
Boris didn't write the law and i doubt he read it either.
The Oryx equipment tally https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html is running at 3.7 Russian to 1 Ukrainian. Even if the Ukrainian hits are better reported we can assume at least 3 to 1. The Ukrainians are also capturing a lot of reusable kit in that number. It would be a reasonable assumption that military manpower losses are 3 to 5 Russians for each Ukrainian. Unfortunately uncounted and large civilian casualties.
Sadly I think you may be being too optimistic there, nether Ukrainians troops or Ukraine civilians have a reason to photograph upload or share photos of there own equipment being destroyed, and Russian troops have had there phones taken off them. Ukrainian losses may be similar to Russians and if not, that would be become the Ukrainians have less equipment to start with.
As for Solders killed, Sadly, I think it most likely that the Ukrainians have lost a lot more than the Russians,
Oryx is the gold standard, requiring digital evidence. Since more far more Russian tanks and armoured vehicles are recorded as being destroyed and damaged it follows that more Russian troups have been killed or injured.
Oryx is a gold standard which is why I check it regally.
However your assertion is incorrect, there are 'compounding variables' at pay here.
This has been discussed here a lot. However If you whish to bilevel that, then go ahead.
Dunkirk, Fury, 1917, P Ryan - all lovely cinematography, squire, bootiful soundtrack, shame about the story. We seem to have run out of things to say about WWs.
At the time I recall loving the first third (the soldiers), being seriously disappointed by the middle bit (the boat) and quite liking the end (the pilots)
This is impressive (from Wiki):
Dunkirk grossed $188 million in the United States and Canada, and $337 million in other countries, for a worldwide total of $525 million, against a production budget of $100–150 million.[14][135] Globally, it is the highest-grossing World War II film (not adjusting for inflation), surpassing Saving Private Ryan's $482 million
Interest rates on student loans to hit 12% in England. Outrageous.
Covered on previous thread.....outrageous for the country as we ultimately will all pick up the tab when the loan isn't repaid in full, basically irrelevant on the level of the individual student.
Depends what they earn and how much they repay. My daughter has been paying back her maintenance loans for about 5 years now and the capital debt is still increasing because she is relatively low paid. The risk here is that the capital for many, many more people will increase beyond the point they can hope to repay with the consequence that they pay a higher tax rate for their entire working lives for 3 or 4 years of fun at the start. Its a very bad deal.
The statistics show that this is already the case. For the umpteenth time, for basically everybody but those that managed to get a very highly paid job quite quickly out of university, a student loan is just a graduate tax.
I need to check, but also am I right in thinking that this 12% is only on the "new style" student loans. They changed the system in 2012.
I think that is right and that it is also going to be capped in the future but anyone who expects to make reasonable money really should borrow from a bank, not The Student Loan company. Much, much better rates.
The practical effect of this will be to further divide society. Those whose families can afford to pay their fees for them will be better off for the vast bulk of their working lives. Those from more ordinary backgrounds will not.
Another sad byproduct of it is that it creates an economic generational divide: a graduate in a decent career who graduated before the new fees came in is going to have a realistic prospect of being debt free by say their mid 30s. They will have hundreds of pounds more of disposable income a month. That will feed its way through into being better placed for that new car, or that mortgage, or extra savings for a rainy day.
The young really have been f***ed royally in the past decade.
That isn't quite right either.
When fees were £3k, people were normally getting £15k of loans / debt. Also, you had to pay the £3k fees upfront every year, so middle class families got hammered. Poor got support, rich no problem. But it was your family, not what you earned after the degree. Now the weight falls on those who most benefit from the degree, nothing to do with your family.
Then the level you starting repaying was much lower, so if you earned middle salary say £30-35k a year, you had to repay % of more of you income but still not really enough to be paying off the £15k very quickly.
That's not right about paying £3k up front. The £3k fees started in 2006-07, which was my second year at uni. I paid my £1,200 up front in 2005-06, but then was given a loan for the £1,200 in the second and third years. Those students starting in 2006-07 and later never paid fees up front.
Must be misremembering. My apologises.
It doesn't alter the central premise though, that people still ran up big loans in combination with the level at which repayments started was much lower. So although headline rate was lower, you were paying that rate on a lot more income, but at same time few people still manage to repay the principle over the 25-30 years.
When £1200 fees came in, the balance was the other way, student loan smaller / less debt and a more people paid off the principle. But they were still paying most of their working lives, at a smaller monthly % but on a larger amount of their income.
Ultimately all that has happened a load of debt has been shifted onto the public as a whole. Most student are hardly repaying the £27k a year in fees over their working lives, let alone the rest of the debt.
I do agree with much of this but I would like to see the data about the proportion of people who fail to pay the 2006-7 loans off. Certainly among those I know, a number have achieved this and not on what I would necessarily consider to be megabucks city salaries (though some were and they got through the repayment obviously much more quickly). Key thing I always thought about the 2006 regime was that although it was always a real possibility you would never pay it off, with a fair wind and a decent career you would probably get there in time. Which is obviously different to the new regime where it’s a bit of a pipe dream except to those who are really the country’s top graduate earners.
I am sure more did than now, where it is a very small proportion, and with a smaller principle it tilts the balance between paying it off if you do come into a lump sum*. But its quite complex because every individual situation is different. If you never get out of earning £30-35k a year, both system you are going to be making repayments for the entire period, then you need to calculate total repayments over the now 30 year period.
* but then again, it all depends on your life situation what you could use that lump sum for i.e. I gave my example down thread where I am sure I should have just bought a house in my early 20s using a big deposit rather than pay off the principle of the loan. An extra interest I would have paid making monthly repayments definitely overshadowed by how much I would have made having owned a property for 5-6 years longer.
It's probably just as well that I am not French. From the BBC:
"US President Joe Biden has accused Russian forces of committing acts of "genocide" in Ukraine.
He said Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to "wipe out the idea" of a Ukrainian identity.
Mr Biden has previously stopped short of references to genocide, instead accusing Moscow of "war crimes".
French President Emmanuel Macron later told French TV he was reluctant to use the term and warned against an "escalation of rhetoric".
Speaking to the public broadcaster France 2, the French President said he would be "careful with such terms today because these two peoples are brothers."
"I want to continue to try, as much as I can, to stop this war and rebuild peace. I am not sure that an escalation of rhetoric serves that cause," he added."
I mean, how on earth do you vote for this twat, even to stop Le Pen? Escalation of rhetoric? Jeez. Words fail me.
If there were a real hope of a negotiated peace, then I'd have some sympathy with Macron's position. Partly because a negotiator has to find common ground, not drive wedges, and partly because I really hate the devaluation of vital legal terms (like genocide and WMD) by many for political point-scoring and manipulation of the public's emotions.
But, and it is a huge BUT, even if the individual negotiators are acting in good faith, it is clear Putin never has been. Putin's own words show that the negotiations are dead (and will be until one side is exhausted or beaten on the battlefield).
And the Russians' own words, including those of Putin himself, are making a stronger case that genocide is indeed the correct term, more even than the hideous acts being uncovered on the ground (which themselves are prima facie proof of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but not, yet IMO, of genocide. Mariupol, once we get there, or Kherson, are both likely to provide direct proof of genocidal acts to match Russia's genocidal policies and doctrines).
So, yes, Macron is a dangerous egotistical twat. But even so, if I were French, I'd still have to vote for him.
Macron's comments, by conflating Russian and Ukrainians as "one" which "really means it isn't genocide" kind of leads to me Eddie Izzards quote in Dressed to kill:
"Pol Pot killed one point seven million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, aged seventy-two, well done indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it is they killed their own people. And we're sort of fine with that.....Hitler tried to kill people next door. Ah....silly man. After a couple of years we won't stand for that, will we?"
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Keir Starmer says he has "absolutely nothing in common" with Boris Johnson
In a stinging attack on the PM's character, Starmer says he "can't fathom" his "utter disrespect" for the public, and that he's the "opposite" of an honest man
The increasing use of extremely long minimum sentences and whole life orders suggests that the justice system is moving to a point where society thinks that there is no possibility of redemption for quite a lot of criminals.
I think that this is unfortunate. Not the case with this example, but if people plead guilty, and co-operate with the authorities, claim that they want to pursue a different path... shouldn't they be given some hope, a path forward?
No doubt many will regard me as an 'idiot naive liberal', but for much of the twentieth century, the principles set out above were common ground, they were the basis of criminal justice policy for generations. Even though they were not working very well of late, it is still sad to see them go.
There are about 50 people serving whole life orders, fewer than one in a million of the population. Their records are easily accessible. The thought that one in a million or so people are that bad is not pleasant but not unrealistic. Furthermore their redemption remains utterly possible and in their own hands. When you have committed unspeakable crimes - and each one has - a big chuck of redemption is coming to terms with why a civilised community has concluded that you should be punished in a way which is tough but not cruel by international standards for the rest of your life, and accepting its causes and your accountability for it.
Whole life orders are rare, because there are specific tests that must be applied, but if you look at very long minimum sentences, these seem to be increasing. For instance, the murderer of Sabina Nesser just got a minimum term of 36 years. Arthur Labinjo Hughes's stepmother was convicted of manslaughter and got life and 29 years minimum term - Which the attorney general passed to review for being 'unduly lenient'.
These people are unlikely to get out under the current arrangements, because the sentence is saying that there is no possibility of any parole, for this amount of time. Even after this period has lapsed, the parole board tries to be independent and make decisions based on the evidence of redemption, but every time they let someone out who has done a bad crime, they get condemned, and politicians unaminously go along with it.
The albanian guy who killed Sabina Nasser was his first offence, and he pleaded guilty. Not trying to defend him in any way. But, if he knew what was coming, why would he bother? He could have just said nothing, game the proceedings, create some doubt which could mess up the trial and set him free.
I would say that this whole or near whole life punishment is brutal, by international standards, because most countries have a system of pardoning which gives people imprisoned for life something to try and work towards. I am not sure that the our prison conditions are particularly good by international standards, either, particularly not when compared with other countries with similar GDP.
Keir Starmer says he has "absolutely nothing in common" with Boris Johnson
In a stinging attack on the PM's character, Starmer says he "can't fathom" his "utter disrespect" for the public, and that he's the "opposite" of an honest man
Unless Labour have a big lead in the NEV and the Tories suffer a latter Major year's loss of councillors, eg over 500 as they did in 1994 at the same stage in the cycle, then Boris should be OK
Dunkirk, Fury, 1917, P Ryan - all lovely cinematography, squire, bootiful soundtrack, shame about the story. We seem to have run out of things to say about WWs.
Interesting that they all have one act which is stand-out good, but are weaker on narrative (as you say)
Dunkirk: the first third with the soldiers 1917: the night fighting sequence Saving Private Ryan: The first half hour, then it drops away badly
Apocalypse now, by contrast, amazes and dazzles all the way through, which sets it apart, the only real flaw is Fat Marlon Brando hamming it up at the end, but even then it is compelling
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
The increasing use of extremely long minimum sentences and whole life orders suggests that the justice system is moving to a point where society thinks that there is no possibility of redemption for quite a lot of criminals.
I think that this is unfortunate. Not the case with this example, but if people plead guilty, and co-operate with the authorities, claim that they want to pursue a different path... shouldn't they be given some hope, a path forward?
No doubt many will regard me as an 'idiot naive liberal', but for much of the twentieth century, the principles set out above were common ground, they were the basis of criminal justice policy for generations. Even though they were not working very well of late, it is still sad to see them go.
There are about 50 people serving whole life orders, fewer than one in a million of the population. Their records are easily accessible. The thought that one in a million or so people are that bad is not pleasant but not unrealistic. Furthermore their redemption remains utterly possible and in their own hands. When you have committed unspeakable crimes - and each one has - a big chuck of redemption is coming to terms with why a civilised community has concluded that you should be punished in a way which is tough but not cruel by international standards for the rest of your life, and accepting its causes and your accountability for it.
Whole life orders are rare, because there are specific tests that must be applied, but if you look at very long minimum sentences, these seem to be increasing. For instance, the murderer of Sabina Nesser just got a minimum term of 36 years. Arthur Labinjo Hughes's stepmother was convicted of manslaughter and got life and 29 years minimum term - Which the attorney general passed to review for being 'unduly lenient'.
These people are unlikely to get out under the current arrangements, because the sentence is saying that there is no possibility of any parole, for this amount of time. Even after this period has lapsed, the parole board tries to be independent and make decisions based on the evidence of redemption, but every time they let someone out who has done a bad crime, they get condemned, and politicians unaminously go along with it.
The albanian guy who killed Sabina Nasser was his first offence, and he pleaded guilty. Not trying to defend him in any way. But, if he knew what was coming, why would he bother? He could have just said nothing, game the proceedings, create some doubt which could mess up the trial and set him free.
I would say that this whole or near whole life punishment is brutal, by international standards, because most countries have a system of pardoning which gives people imprisoned for life something to try and work towards. I am not sure that the our prison conditions are particularly good by international standards, either, particularly not when compared with other countries with similar GDP.
It's the education inside that has really fallen behind. Often there are courses you need to pass as a condition of release. But they aren't available. If you're going to keep folk inside, you may as well give them the chance at least to do something useful and productive. But it costs money.
The Oryx equipment tally https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html is running at 3.7 Russian to 1 Ukrainian. Even if the Ukrainian hits are better reported we can assume at least 3 to 1. The Ukrainians are also capturing a lot of reusable kit in that number. It would be a reasonable assumption that military manpower losses are 3 to 5 Russians for each Ukrainian. Unfortunately uncounted and large civilian casualties.
Sadly I think you may be being too optimistic there, nether Ukrainians troops or Ukraine civilians have a reason to photograph upload or share photos of there own equipment being destroyed, and Russian troops have had there phones taken off them. Ukrainian losses may be similar to Russians and if not, that would be become the Ukrainians have less equipment to start with.
As for Solders killed, Sadly, I think it most likely that the Ukrainians have lost a lot more than the Russians,
Oryx is the gold standard, requiring digital evidence. Since more far more Russian tanks and armoured vehicles are recorded as being destroyed and damaged it follows that more Russian troups have been killed or injured.
Oryx is a gold standard which is why I check it regally.
However your assertion is incorrect, there are 'compounding variables' at pay here.
This has been discussed here a lot. However If you whish to bilevel that, then go ahead.
One being that for much of the war, the bulk of the destruction was done on Russian occupied territory - hence the recent addition of quite large numbers of Russian losses as Ukraine has retaken ground.
The idea that there's anything even approaching a 3:1 differential in reporting is, I think, misguided.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Dunkirk, Fury, 1917, P Ryan - all lovely cinematography, squire, bootiful soundtrack, shame about the story. We seem to have run out of things to say about WWs.
Interesting that they all have one act which is stand-out good, but are weaker on narrative (as you say)
Dunkirk: the first third with the soldiers 1917: the night fighting sequence Saving Private Ryan: The first half hour, then it drops away badly
Apocalypse now, by contrast, amazes and dazzles all the way through, which sets it apart, the only real flaw is Fat Marlon Brando hamming it up at the end, but even then it is compelling
A friend of mine was in Vietnam during the war.
He played sax in the backing group for the Playboy tour....
Interest rates on student loans to hit 12% in England. Outrageous.
Covered on previous thread.....outrageous for the country as we ultimately will all pick up the tab when the loan isn't repaid in full, basically irrelevant on the level of the individual student.
Depends what they earn and how much they repay. My daughter has been paying back her maintenance loans for about 5 years now and the capital debt is still increasing because she is relatively low paid. The risk here is that the capital for many, many more people will increase beyond the point they can hope to repay with the consequence that they pay a higher tax rate for their entire working lives for 3 or 4 years of fun at the start. Its a very bad deal.
The statistics show that this is already the case. For the umpteenth time, for basically everybody but those that managed to get a very highly paid job quite quickly out of university, a student loan is just a graduate tax.
I need to check, but also am I right in thinking that this 12% is only on the "new style" student loans. They changed the system in 2012.
I think that is right and that it is also going to be capped in the future but anyone who expects to make reasonable money really should borrow from a bank, not The Student Loan company. Much, much better rates.
The practical effect of this will be to further divide society. Those whose families can afford to pay their fees for them will be better off for the vast bulk of their working lives. Those from more ordinary backgrounds will not.
Another sad byproduct of it is that it creates an economic generational divide: a graduate in a decent career who graduated before the new fees came in is going to have a realistic prospect of being debt free by say their mid 30s. They will have hundreds of pounds more of disposable income a month. That will feed its way through into being better placed for that new car, or that mortgage, or extra savings for a rainy day.
The young really have been f***ed royally in the past decade.
That isn't quite right either.
When fees were £3k, people were normally getting £15k of loans / debt. Also, you had to pay the £3k fees upfront every year, so middle class families got hammered. Poor got support, rich no problem. But it was your family, not what you earned after the degree. Now the weight falls on those who most benefit from the degree, nothing to do with your family.
Then the level you starting repaying was much lower, so if you earned middle salary say £30-35k a year, you had to repay % of more of you income but still not really enough to be paying off the £15k very quickly.
That's not right about paying £3k up front. The £3k fees started in 2006-07, which was my second year at uni. I paid my £1,200 up front in 2005-06, but then was given a loan for the £1,200 in the second and third years. Those students starting in 2006-07 and later never paid fees up front.
Must be misremembering. My apologises.
It doesn't alter the central premise though, that people still ran up big loans in combination with the level at which repayments started was much lower. So although headline rate was lower, you were paying that rate on a lot more income, but at same time few people still manage to repay the principle over the 25-30 years.
When £1200 fees came in, the balance was the other way, student loan smaller / less debt and a more people paid off the principle. But they were still paying most of their working lives, at a smaller monthly % but on a larger amount of their income.
Ultimately all that has happened a load of debt has been shifted onto the public as a whole. Most student are hardly repaying the £27k a year in fees over their working lives, let alone the rest of the debt.
I do agree with much of this but I would like to see the data about the proportion of people who fail to pay the 2006-7 loans off. Certainly among those I know, a number have achieved this and not on what I would necessarily consider to be megabucks city salaries (though some were and they got through the repayment obviously much more quickly). Key thing I always thought about the 2006 regime was that although it was always a real possibility you would never pay it off, with a fair wind and a decent career you would probably get there in time. Which is obviously different to the new regime where it’s a bit of a pipe dream except to those who are really the country’s top graduate earners.
I am sure more did than now, where it is a very small proportion, and with a smaller principle it tilts the balance between paying it off if you do come into a lump sum*. But its quite complex because every individual situation is different. If you never get out of earning £30-35k a year, both system you are going to be making repayments for the entire period, then you need to calculate total repayments over the now 30 year period.
* but then again, it all depends on your life situation what you could use that lump sum for i.e. I gave my example down thread where I am sure I should have just bought a house in my early 20s using a big deposit rather than pay off the principle of the loan. An extra interest I would have paid making monthly repayments definitely overshadowed by how much I would have made having owned a property for 5-6 years longer.
Yes I agree with you on early repayment. Certainly for the 2006 regime interest has been so low for some time that it doesn’t make practical sense - it’s cheap borrowing with no credit impact. For the new regime, it’s a different calculation entirely - the amount of the loan itself is the reason to avoid early repayment. I believe much that has been written about it essentially advises most people to see it as a tax and leave it at that, given the low chance of full repayment.
Unless Labour have a big lead in the NEV and the Tories suffer a latter Major year's loss of councillors, eg over 500 as they did in 1994 at the same stage in the cycle, then Boris should be OK
That's gone up from the other day hasn't it?
It would entail the Tories losing well over one in three of the councillors they are defending - a far higher proportion even than May lost at her nadir in 2019. Desperate stuff, even for HYUFD.
The increasing use of extremely long minimum sentences and whole life orders suggests that the justice system is moving to a point where society thinks that there is no possibility of redemption for quite a lot of criminals.
I think that this is unfortunate. Not the case with this example, but if people plead guilty, and co-operate with the authorities, claim that they want to pursue a different path... shouldn't they be given some hope, a path forward?
No doubt many will regard me as an 'idiot naive liberal', but for much of the twentieth century, the principles set out above were common ground, they were the basis of criminal justice policy for generations. Even though they were not working very well of late, it is still sad to see them go.
There are about 50 people serving whole life orders, fewer than one in a million of the population. Their records are easily accessible. The thought that one in a million or so people are that bad is not pleasant but not unrealistic. Furthermore their redemption remains utterly possible and in their own hands. When you have committed unspeakable crimes - and each one has - a big chuck of redemption is coming to terms with why a civilised community has concluded that you should be punished in a way which is tough but not cruel by international standards for the rest of your life, and accepting its causes and your accountability for it.
Whole life orders are rare, because there are specific tests that must be applied, but if you look at very long minimum sentences, these seem to be increasing. For instance, the murderer of Sabina Nesser just got a minimum term of 36 years. Arthur Labinjo Hughes's stepmother was convicted of manslaughter and got life and 29 years minimum term - Which the attorney general passed to review for being 'unduly lenient'.
These people are unlikely to get out under the current arrangements, because the sentence is saying that there is no possibility of any parole, for this amount of time. Even after this period has lapsed, the parole board tries to be independent and make decisions based on the evidence of redemption, but every time they let someone out who has done a bad crime, they get condemned, and politicians unaminously go along with it.
The albanian guy who killed Sabina Nasser was his first offence, and he pleaded guilty. Not trying to defend him in any way. But, if he knew what was coming, why would he bother? He could have just said nothing, game the proceedings, create some doubt which could mess up the trial and set him free.
I would say that this whole or near whole life punishment is brutal, by international standards, because most countries have a system of pardoning which gives people imprisoned for life something to try and work towards. I am not sure that the our prison conditions are particularly good by international standards, either, particularly not when compared with other countries with similar GDP.
It's the education inside that has really fallen behind. Often there are courses you need to pass as a condition of release. But they aren't available. If you're going to keep folk inside, you may as well give them the chance at least to do something useful and productive. But it costs money.
Yes. There was a very good interview with the new(ish?) Director of Prisons who seems to get it but translating that into action must be challenging.
Of the few friends of mine who have been in prison most say they spent a good deal of their time reading letters to inmates and writing return letters on their behalf - but that was around 10-15 years ago so not sure if things have changed since then.
Dunkirk, Fury, 1917, P Ryan - all lovely cinematography, squire, bootiful soundtrack, shame about the story. We seem to have run out of things to say about WWs.
Interesting that they all have one act which is stand-out good, but are weaker on narrative (as you say)
Dunkirk: the first third with the soldiers 1917: the night fighting sequence Saving Private Ryan: The first half hour, then it drops away badly
Apocalypse now, by contrast, amazes and dazzles all the way through, which sets it apart, the only real flaw is Fat Marlon Brando hamming it up at the end, but even then it is compelling
I saw the latter when it first came out. Mind blowing for an unjaded teenage viewer. And even back then I worked out that whoever did the sound was someone very special indeed.
The Oryx equipment tally https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html is running at 3.7 Russian to 1 Ukrainian. Even if the Ukrainian hits are better reported we can assume at least 3 to 1. The Ukrainians are also capturing a lot of reusable kit in that number. It would be a reasonable assumption that military manpower losses are 3 to 5 Russians for each Ukrainian. Unfortunately uncounted and large civilian casualties.
Sadly I think you may be being too optimistic there, nether Ukrainians troops or Ukraine civilians have a reason to photograph upload or share photos of there own equipment being destroyed, and Russian troops have had there phones taken off them. Ukrainian losses may be similar to Russians and if not, that would be become the Ukrainians have less equipment to start with.
As for Solders killed, Sadly, I think it most likely that the Ukrainians have lost a lot more than the Russians,
Oryx is the gold standard, requiring digital evidence. Since more far more Russian tanks and armoured vehicles are recorded as being destroyed and damaged it follows that more Russian troups have been killed or injured.
Oryx is a gold standard which is why I check it regally.
However your assertion is incorrect, there are 'compounding variables' at pay here.
This has been discussed here a lot. However If you whish to bilevel that, then go ahead.
One being that for much of the war, the bulk of the destruction was done on Russian occupied territory - hence the recent addition of quite large numbers of Russian losses as Ukraine has retaken ground.
The idea that there's anything even approaching a 3:1 differential in reporting is, I think, misguided.
Yes,
and Orys is now up to 499 Russian tanks.
does anybody have a '500 Lost Russian Tanks' dance Ready?
Interest rates on student loans to hit 12% in England. Outrageous.
Covered on previous thread.....outrageous for the country as we ultimately will all pick up the tab when the loan isn't repaid in full, basically irrelevant on the level of the individual student.
Depends what they earn and how much they repay. My daughter has been paying back her maintenance loans for about 5 years now and the capital debt is still increasing because she is relatively low paid. The risk here is that the capital for many, many more people will increase beyond the point they can hope to repay with the consequence that they pay a higher tax rate for their entire working lives for 3 or 4 years of fun at the start. Its a very bad deal.
The statistics show that this is already the case. For the umpteenth time, for basically everybody but those that managed to get a very highly paid job quite quickly out of university, a student loan is just a graduate tax.
I need to check, but also am I right in thinking that this 12% is only on the "new style" student loans. They changed the system in 2012.
I think that is right and that it is also going to be capped in the future but anyone who expects to make reasonable money really should borrow from a bank, not The Student Loan company. Much, much better rates.
The practical effect of this will be to further divide society. Those whose families can afford to pay their fees for them will be better off for the vast bulk of their working lives. Those from more ordinary backgrounds will not.
Another sad byproduct of it is that it creates an economic generational divide: a graduate in a decent career who graduated before the new fees came in is going to have a realistic prospect of being debt free by say their mid 30s. They will have hundreds of pounds more of disposable income a month. That will feed its way through into being better placed for that new car, or that mortgage, or extra savings for a rainy day.
The young really have been f***ed royally in the past decade.
That isn't quite right either.
When fees were £3k, people were normally getting £15k of loans / debt. Also, you had to pay the £3k fees upfront every year, so middle class families got hammered. Poor got support, rich no problem. But it was your family, not what you earned after the degree. Now the weight falls on those who most benefit from the degree, nothing to do with your family.
Then the level you starting repaying was much lower, so if you earned middle salary say £30-35k a year, you had to repay % of more of you income but still not really enough to be paying off the £15k very quickly.
That's not right about paying £3k up front. The £3k fees started in 2006-07, which was my second year at uni. I paid my £1,200 up front in 2005-06, but then was given a loan for the £1,200 in the second and third years. Those students starting in 2006-07 and later never paid fees up front.
Must be misremembering. My apologises.
It doesn't alter the central premise though, that people still ran up big loans in combination with the level at which repayments started was much lower. So although headline rate was lower, you were paying that rate on a lot more income, but at same time few people still manage to repay the principle over the 25-30 years.
When £1200 fees came in, the balance was the other way, student loan smaller / less debt and a more people paid off the principle. But they were still paying most of their working lives, at a smaller monthly % but on a larger amount of their income.
Ultimately all that has happened a load of debt has been shifted onto the public as a whole. Most student are hardly repaying the £27k a year in fees over their working lives, let alone the rest of the debt.
I do agree with much of this but I would like to see the data about the proportion of people who fail to pay the 2006-7 loans off. Certainly among those I know, a number have achieved this and not on what I would necessarily consider to be megabucks city salaries (though some were and they got through the repayment obviously much more quickly). Key thing I always thought about the 2006 regime was that although it was always a real possibility you would never pay it off, with a fair wind and a decent career you would probably get there in time. Which is obviously different to the new regime where it’s a bit of a pipe dream except to those who are really the country’s top graduate earners.
I am sure more did than now, where it is a very small proportion, and with a smaller principle it tilts the balance between paying it off if you do come into a lump sum*. But its quite complex because every individual situation is different. If you never get out of earning £30-35k a year, both system you are going to be making repayments for the entire period, then you need to calculate total repayments over the now 30 year period.
* but then again, it all depends on your life situation what you could use that lump sum for i.e. I gave my example down thread where I am sure I should have just bought a house in my early 20s using a big deposit rather than pay off the principle of the loan. An extra interest I would have paid making monthly repayments definitely overshadowed by how much I would have made having owned a property for 5-6 years longer.
Yes I agree with you on early repayment. Certainly for the 2006 regime interest has been so low for some time that it doesn’t make practical sense - it’s cheap borrowing with no credit impact. For the new regime, it’s a different calculation entirely - the amount of the loan itself is the reason to avoid early repayment. I believe much that has been written about it essentially advises most people to see it as a tax and leave it at that, given the low chance of full repayment.
Correct. The only situation it is worth thinking about early repayment is you go straight into a career where you know your income is going to be extremely high and thus you will be making the full repayment over the course of your career. But even then, say you go into the city, earning £100k+ a year mid 20s with a nice bonus, would you be better buying a house with your bonus first, then trying to pay it off.
People then say well that's not fair, rich getting richer etc. But that isn't quite true, but they are making a full repayment of say £50k loan, rather than somebody on never earns a salary of more than say £40k is never getting close to making that level of repayment over the 30 year repayment period (which makes the interest rate on a personal level irrelevant).
We are all going to pay when the write down of these unpaid loans starts hitting in 20 years time.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Interesting that the BBC is leading on the story that a Cabinet Minister, when asked about the fact that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been fined for breaking the law, said the P{rime Minister had been wrong to do so.
Is this a coded way of telling us that the real story is that the rest of the Cabinet doesn't think it's wrong to break the law?
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
The increasing use of extremely long minimum sentences and whole life orders suggests that the justice system is moving to a point where society thinks that there is no possibility of redemption for quite a lot of criminals.
I think that this is unfortunate. Not the case with this example, but if people plead guilty, and co-operate with the authorities, claim that they want to pursue a different path... shouldn't they be given some hope, a path forward?
No doubt many will regard me as an 'idiot naive liberal', but for much of the twentieth century, the principles set out above were common ground, they were the basis of criminal justice policy for generations. Even though they were not working very well of late, it is still sad to see them go.
There are about 50 people serving whole life orders, fewer than one in a million of the population. Their records are easily accessible. The thought that one in a million or so people are that bad is not pleasant but not unrealistic. Furthermore their redemption remains utterly possible and in their own hands. When you have committed unspeakable crimes - and each one has - a big chuck of redemption is coming to terms with why a civilised community has concluded that you should be punished in a way which is tough but not cruel by international standards for the rest of your life, and accepting its causes and your accountability for it.
Whole life orders are rare, because there are specific tests that must be applied, but if you look at very long minimum sentences, these seem to be increasing. For instance, the murderer of Sabina Nesser just got a minimum term of 36 years. Arthur Labinjo Hughes's stepmother was convicted of manslaughter and got life and 29 years minimum term - Which the attorney general passed to review for being 'unduly lenient'.
These people are unlikely to get out under the current arrangements, because the sentence is saying that there is no possibility of any parole, for this amount of time. Even after this period has lapsed, the parole board tries to be independent and make decisions based on the evidence of redemption, but every time they let someone out who has done a bad crime, they get condemned, and politicians unaminously go along with it.
The albanian guy who killed Sabina Nasser was his first offence, and he pleaded guilty. Not trying to defend him in any way. But, if he knew what was coming, why would he bother? He could have just said nothing, game the proceedings, create some doubt which could mess up the trial and set him free.
I would say that this whole or near whole life punishment is brutal, by international standards, because most countries have a system of pardoning which gives people imprisoned for life something to try and work towards. I am not sure that the our prison conditions are particularly good by international standards, either, particularly not when compared with other countries with similar GDP.
It's the education inside that has really fallen behind. Often there are courses you need to pass as a condition of release. But they aren't available. If you're going to keep folk inside, you may as well give them the chance at least to do something useful and productive. But it costs money.
True, but I think this is more of an issue on shorter jail sentences, when people are going to get out.
But what education you can expect someone to do for 36 years? Is there even any point at all? Surely it would be better to get them to do some sort of menial work, contribute to the (very significant) costs of their incarceration.
If they aren't coming out, ever, then why not execute people? Why are we forking out half a million quid to keep them alive? I'm not at all in favour of the death penalty, but perhaps this is where this trend is leading.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
He has lied to parliament and so according to the Ministerial Code, which is part of our constitutional arrangements, he should resign. But as we have no separation of powers and neither his Cabinet nor his party's MPs seem minded to enforce the Code and Mr Johnson himself has not an ounce of shame or decency it appears that the Code has been rendered worthless. In my view that marks the most serious breach of constitutional democratic government in my lifetime. It is simply astonishing to me that Conservative MPs are prepared to tolerate this. Maybe Angela Rayner's description of them wasn't so far off the mark, after all.
"I'm not surprised that this “mathematician and physicist” who was just humiliated by @benshapiro won a prestigious award. That’s exactly the problem."
Interesting Chris Curtis of Opinium has just said on the BBC that the cost of living crisis is more of a problem for Boris than partygate
Inflation is a killer for any government. Its something everybody experiences ever day, rather than having to following some saga of who said what when, what were the rules when somebody did x, yadda yadda yadda.
Most people won't care about Sunak Green card story, its all very complex, everybody cares about petrol being super expensive, doing the weekly shop costing a lot more, etc etc etc.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
If you can fall back on the "inadvertently misleading Parliament" when would anyone have to resign for lying to Parliament?
Interesting Chris Curtis of Opinium has just said on the BBC that the cost of living crisis is more of a problem for Boris than partygate
What matters more to most people? That Boris had a bit of birthday cake during lockdown two years ago (most of us broke lockdown in some minor way), or that your electricity/gas/petrol bill means you have to find another £300 a month now?
The cost of living crisis matters, and in two years time it will still be being talked about. Partygate will not.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
He has lied to parliament and so according to the Ministerial Code, which is part of our constitutional arrangements, he should resign. But as we have no separation of powers and neither his Cabinet nor his party's MPs seem minded to enforce the Code and Mr Johnson himself has not an ounce of shame or decency it appears that the Code has been rendered worthless. In my view that marks the most serious breach of constitutional democratic government in my lifetime. It is simply astonishing to me that Conservative MPs are prepared to tolerate this. Maybe Angela Rayner's description of them wasn't so far off the mark, after all.
There is absolutely no proof that he lied to Parliament. To prove a lie you need to demonstrate intent to deceive.
If Boris thought that having a slice of cake in the office during a workday was not a "party" then him saying he knew about no parties was not a lie, even if the Police have found it to be illegal.
I've had cake at work before for a colleague's birthday, or for my own, and not once would I have ever considered that to be a "party". If a doctor or a nurse brought a cake with them for a colleague's birthday during the pandemic and they had that and sang happy birthday would that be a "party" in your eyes or just a part of their workday?
The law was broken, the laws should never have been there in the first place so there's a bit of karmic justice that he's been hoist by his own petard. However that doesn't demonstrate a lie has been told, the law was so draconian it didn't require what people would think to be "parties" for a breach of the law.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
If you can fall back on the "inadvertently misleading Parliament" when would anyone have to resign for lying to Parliament?
If you watch the montage of Johnson's various Parliamentary statements on this, then 'inadvertent' is not the first word that springs to mind.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
If you can fall back on the "inadvertently misleading Parliament" when would anyone have to resign for lying to Parliament?
People have been able to fall back on "inadvertently misleading Parliament" in the past. Nothing new there.
In order to prove lying you'd need proof that it wasn't inadvertent surely?
Politico.com - [NY Gov.] Hochul faces tough choices after Lt. Gov. Benjamin's arrest and resignation in New York The high-profile case puts Gov. Kathy Hochul in a difficult position as she seeks a full term this year while tethered to Brian Benjamin.
Nobody in modern New York history has been more vocal a champion of the often-obscure office of lieutenant governor than Kathy Hochul, who served seven years in that post before she was elevated to the governorship last August.
Now the job has become a political albatross for Hochul. The person she wound up picking for that role — then state Sen. Brian Benjamin — has been indicted in an alleged bribery scheme. On Tuesday, he was arrested and arraigned in federal court in Manhattan. By the end of the day, he announced he had resigned to focus on “explaining in court why his actions were laudable—not criminal.”
The high-profile case puts Hochul in a difficult position as she seeks a full term this year while tethered to Benjamin. While Benjamin is out of office, Hochul could be forced to maintain political ties to Benjamin through the June primary election — and maybe run on the same ticket in November should he win the Democratic nomination and turns down options for bowing out of the race.
Just five days ago, Hochul said she had the “utmost confidence” in her lieutenant, even after reports emerged that he had been subpoenaed.
“While the legal process plays out, it is clear to both of us that he cannot continue to serve as Lieutenant Governor,” she said in a statement on Tuesday evening. “New Yorkers deserve absolute confidence in their government, and I will continue working every day to deliver for them.”
Hochul has not been tied to the allegations. The charges involve discretionary money Benjamin distributed as a state senator, and the indictment alleges he lied when the governor was screening him for his position. . . .
I suspect the average British voter has the capacity to be concerned about more than one thing at a time. Their concerns about the cost of living crisis can live alongside a concern that the PM is a brazen liar who has broken the law. The fact that the first is relatively concrete, while the second is more abstract, doesn't stop them both being concerns.
Under Johnson administration, seems biggest offence a minister can commit, is telling Parliament the truth.
Same in White House under POTUS 45. And ditto for Kremlin under Vladimir the Terrible.
He'd no doubt like Vladimir the Terrible. Can you not make it Vladimir the Disastrous? Vlad the Embarrassment? Vlad the All-the-past-Tsars-are-pointing-and-laughing-at-him?
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
He has lied to parliament and so according to the Ministerial Code, which is part of our constitutional arrangements, he should resign. But as we have no separation of powers and neither his Cabinet nor his party's MPs seem minded to enforce the Code and Mr Johnson himself has not an ounce of shame or decency it appears that the Code has been rendered worthless. In my view that marks the most serious breach of constitutional democratic government in my lifetime. It is simply astonishing to me that Conservative MPs are prepared to tolerate this. Maybe Angela Rayner's description of them wasn't so far off the mark, after all.
There is absolutely no proof that he lied to Parliament. To prove a lie you need to demonstrate intent to deceive.
Unless you are a voter.
Then you can use whatever standard of proof you want to say "nah - never again..."
Politico.com - [NY Gov.] Hochul faces tough choices after Lt. Gov. Benjamin's arrest and resignation in New York The high-profile case puts Gov. Kathy Hochul in a difficult position as she seeks a full term this year while tethered to Brian Benjamin.
Nobody in modern New York history has been more vocal a champion of the often-obscure office of lieutenant governor than Kathy Hochul, who served seven years in that post before she was elevated to the governorship last August.
Now the job has become a political albatross for Hochul. The person she wound up picking for that role — then state Sen. Brian Benjamin — has been indicted in an alleged bribery scheme. On Tuesday, he was arrested and arraigned in federal court in Manhattan. By the end of the day, he announced he had resigned to focus on “explaining in court why his actions were laudable—not criminal.”
The high-profile case puts Hochul in a difficult position as she seeks a full term this year while tethered to Benjamin. While Benjamin is out of office, Hochul could be forced to maintain political ties to Benjamin through the June primary election — and maybe run on the same ticket in November should he win the Democratic nomination and turns down options for bowing out of the race.
Just five days ago, Hochul said she had the “utmost confidence” in her lieutenant, even after reports emerged that he had been subpoenaed.
“While the legal process plays out, it is clear to both of us that he cannot continue to serve as Lieutenant Governor,” she said in a statement on Tuesday evening. “New Yorkers deserve absolute confidence in their government, and I will continue working every day to deliver for them.”
Hochul has not been tied to the allegations. The charges involve discretionary money Benjamin distributed as a state senator, and the indictment alleges he lied when the governor was screening him for his position. . . .
Is there a credible Republican in the Race? or is NY to much of a one party state?
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
Yes however inadvertently misleading parliament and apologising is ok, but he clearly went much further than that and for me that is the main offence. He denied stuff and then when found out moved the goalposts while still lying about the new goalposts, when found out about that he moved the goalposts once more and lied once again. That isn't inadvertent.
Re breaking the law that for me is not as cut and dry and I would be willing to let him off, for instance a speeding fine, and even a very minor lockdown offence. If he was taking the piss and there are multiple lockdown offences or serious lockdown breaches then no for this as well mainly because he was imposing them.
I suspect the average British voter has the capacity to be concerned about more than one thing at a time. Their concerns about the cost of living crisis can live alongside a concern that the PM is a brazen liar who has broken the law. The fact that the first is relatively concrete, while the second is more abstract, doesn't stop them both being concerns.
However, you can get away with a lot more misbehaviour if economy is going well. Blair government got away with loads of sleazy stuff when economy was going well. When times are good, people aren't following along, or they hear something something "scandal", but they are off out, going on holiday, taking the kids to some experience....if instead you are telling your kid they can't have new shoes, there are no holidays this year etc, and you are sitting at home pissed off with things, you certainly not going to be giving the government a free pass on anything.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Why? Diminishing returns innit?
You underestimate the enormity of what has happened in the past less-than-24-hours. It is now literally and without exaggeration the case that Johnson could hoick his breeks down and shit on the despatch box with absolute impunity.
The volume of FPNs increase the fine amount, so it is isn't difficult to imagine a scenario of 'Boris Johnson fined £10,000 for his sixth breach of the rules.'
That will prove to be awkward for him.
If that's the way the law works its a badly designed law.
If someone commits a serious crime that results in prison, or multiple of such crimes sentenced together, then the prison sentence tends to be served concurrently not consecutively or exponentially increasing sentences.
It makes sense to have FPN for past offenders be escalating, but only for breaches made after the first FPN was resolved surely? While ignorance is no excuse, if someone didn't realise they were breaking the law and did the same thing as part of their routine every morning then to stack exponential fines years later is quite worrying if normal people are being treated like that.
"if someone didn't realise they were breaking the law"
Hardly relevant to the case where 'someone' wrote the thing, mind.
Boris didn't write the law and i doubt he read it either.
That's funny. As funny as he was when he told us all about it with his trademark jokes and diversions.
Catching up with the Chris Mason news. Excellent appointment. No idea why he didn't apply in first round. Having said that he seems a sensible chap, maybe he just didn't fancy all the hassle and endless sniping from the social media warriors in their underpants?
Catching up with the Chris Mason news. Excellent appointment. No idea why he didn't apply in first round. Having said that he seems a sensible chap, maybe he just didn't fancy all the hassle and endless sniping from the social media warriors in their underpants?
Catching up with the Chris Mason news. Excellent appointment. No idea why he didn't apply in first round. Having said that he seems a sensible chap, maybe he just didn't fancy all the hassle and endless sniping from the social media warriors in their underpants?
Maybe he saw the abuse LauraK got and thought I am alright thanks. Also, that role is less of a job and more a way of life. All of a sudden you are expected to have "online" 24/7 in order to report on the goings on within government and also you need to be following the PM around where ever they go e.g. lots of trips abroad.
No idea about his personal life, but if you have kids, I imagine it would take a fair bit of convincing that all of having to travel all over the place at the drop of a hat isn't ideal.
Catching up with the Chris Mason news. Excellent appointment. No idea why he didn't apply in first round. Having said that he seems a sensible chap, maybe he just didn't fancy all the hassle and endless sniping from the social media warriors in their underpants?
He doesn't appear to be a Tory hack. Am I wrong? Nadine will be spitting feathers.
Under Johnson administration, seems biggest offence a minister can commit, is telling Parliament the truth.
Same in White House under POTUS 45. And ditto for Kremlin under Vladimir the Terrible.
All has shades of POTUS 42 for me actually.
Am guessing that you were NOT around for that administration?
Personally NOT a fan of Bill Clinton. But as President, he and his administration were simply NOT in the same rogues gallery as Johnson, Trump & Putin.
Under Johnson administration, seems biggest offence a minister can commit, is telling Parliament the truth.
Same in White House under POTUS 45. And ditto for Kremlin under Vladimir the Terrible.
All has shades of POTUS 42 for me actually.
Am guessing that you were NOT around for that administration?
Personally NOT a fan of Bill Clinton. But as President, he and his administration were simply NOT in the same rogues gallery as Johnson, Trump & Putin.
Neither is Johnson or his administration in the same rogues gallery as the other two.
However Johnson has a comparable relationship with the truth to Clinton. There's shades of "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" then discussing the meaning of words to claim there was no lie etc about all this.
Under Johnson administration, seems biggest offence a minister can commit, is telling Parliament the truth.
Same in White House under POTUS 45. And ditto for Kremlin under Vladimir the Terrible.
All has shades of POTUS 42 for me actually.
Am guessing that you were NOT around for that administration?
Personally NOT a fan of Bill Clinton. But as President, he and his administration were simply NOT in the same rogues gallery as Johnson, Trump & Putin.
You obviously have no interest in being taken remotely seriously. Johnson in the same category as Putin? Piss off.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
Under Johnson administration, seems biggest offence a minister can commit, is telling Parliament the truth.
Same in White House under POTUS 45. And ditto for Kremlin under Vladimir the Terrible.
All has shades of POTUS 42 for me actually.
Am guessing that you were NOT around for that administration?
Personally NOT a fan of Bill Clinton. But as President, he and his administration were simply NOT in the same rogues gallery as Johnson, Trump & Putin.
hmmm
Obama and Merkel seem much more guilty of rolling over to Putin,
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I hear you. But have to ask why? Look at their response: 1. The legal infraction was minor and can be ignored Why does the number of these matter? They are either irrelevant or they are not 2. The problem is the rules, not breaking them 3. Its not the time to change leader cos Ukraine
The brazen twat is going to bluster his way through this and the sycophants are going to say "yes Mr Boris sir".
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Do I get cancelled if I joke about Carrie Johnson having a piece of fruitcake at his place of work?
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Cake! When was the wedding exactly?
It's not far off an argument that Mr Johnson thinks that life is a permanent party anyway, certainly if there are two or more other peoiple present. Not sure it works quite as well as BR thinks it does.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I hear you. But have to ask why? Look at their response: 1. The legal infraction was minor and can be ignored Why does the number of these matter? They are either irrelevant or they are not 2. The problem is the rules, not breaking them 3. Its not the time to change leader cos Ukraine
The brazen twat is going to bluster his way through this and the sycophants are going to say "yes Mr Boris sir".
Its immoral. But so are they.
I reckon TSE knows more about Johnson and Partygate than he is so far letting on. Mum's the word!
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Do I get cancelled if I joke about Carrie Johnson having a piece of fruitcake at his place of work?
I would think, based on trying to get their decoration paid for by others, a sponge cake more likely.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Cake! When was the wedding exactly?
Have you never had a slice of birthday cake at work on a colleague's birthday?
Keir Starmer says he has "absolutely nothing in common" with Boris Johnson
Indeed, Boris Johnson won an election and Starmer will never have that in common with him. 😉
You have been attacking Johnson for months but I hope you are back on side with him now.
No. He should go and so should Sunak.
Boris is in great peril and it has been entirely self inflicted
I do not expect him to survive in office much longer and I am far from certain that Rishi will not walk anyway
The reports have it that yesterday's prolonged silence was because he wanted to resign and was talked out of it. That he eventually released a statement that copied much of what the Big Liar said demonstrates that he was nobbled.
He will live to regret it. An honourable resignation is far better than dishonourably being hounded out of office.
Not that most Tory MPs and some of their supporters on here have any honour.
Catching up with the Chris Mason news. Excellent appointment. No idea why he didn't apply in first round. Having said that he seems a sensible chap, maybe he just didn't fancy all the hassle and endless sniping from the social media warriors in their underpants?
Maybe he saw the abuse LauraK got and thought I am alright thanks. Also, that role is less of a job and more a way of life. All of a sudden you are expected to have "online" 24/7 in order to report on the goings on within government and also you need to be following the PM around where ever they go e.g. lots of trips abroad.
No idea about his personal life, but if you have kids, I imagine it would take a fair bit of convincing that all of having to travel all over the place at the drop of a hat isn't ideal.
Nah, LauraK was pisspoor.
By some distance the worst candidate to ever fill the role: more of a mouthpiece than a journalist.
One hopes Mason will be better. He could scarcely be worse.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Do I get cancelled if I joke about Carrie Johnson having a piece of fruitcake at his place of work?
Only if you remove 'a piece of' so the joke parses properly.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
Woodward and Bernstein must be crying into their notebooks. For years they were the journalists pictured in the dictionary next to the phrase “Top scoop” now sadly to be replaced by Ned Simons.
People always remark that footballers are better now than they ever were, computers have made extraordinary improvements but until now we hadn’t seen journalism make that mighty leap until this moment.
Congratulations Ned and congratulations Scott_xP for getting the scoop on this scoop.
Comments
However your assertion is incorrect, there are 'compounding variables' at pay here.
This has been discussed here a lot. However If you whish to bilevel that, then go ahead.
At the time I recall loving the first third (the soldiers), being seriously disappointed by the middle bit (the boat) and quite liking the end (the pilots)
This is impressive (from Wiki):
Dunkirk grossed $188 million in the United States and Canada, and $337 million in other countries, for a worldwide total of $525 million, against a production budget of $100–150 million.[14][135] Globally, it is the highest-grossing World War II film (not adjusting for inflation), surpassing Saving Private Ryan's $482 million
I should give it a re-watch
* but then again, it all depends on your life situation what you could use that lump sum for i.e. I gave my example down thread where I am sure I should have just bought a house in my early 20s using a big deposit rather than pay off the principle of the loan. An extra interest I would have paid making monthly repayments definitely overshadowed by how much I would have made having owned a property for 5-6 years longer.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
These people are unlikely to get out under the current arrangements, because the sentence is saying that there is no possibility of any parole, for this amount of time. Even after this period has lapsed, the parole board tries to be independent and make decisions based on the evidence of redemption, but every time they let someone out who has done a bad crime, they get condemned, and politicians unaminously go along with it.
The albanian guy who killed Sabina Nasser was his first offence, and he pleaded guilty. Not trying to defend him in any way. But, if he knew what was coming, why would he bother? He could have just said nothing, game the proceedings, create some doubt which could mess up the trial and set him free.
I would say that this whole or near whole life punishment is brutal,
by international standards, because most countries have a system of pardoning which gives people imprisoned for life something to try and work towards. I am not sure that the our prison conditions are particularly good by international standards, either, particularly not when compared with other countries with similar GDP.
Dunkirk: the first third with the soldiers
1917: the night fighting sequence
Saving Private Ryan: The first half hour, then it drops away badly
Apocalypse now, by contrast, amazes and dazzles all the way through, which sets it apart, the only real flaw is Fat Marlon Brando hamming it up at the end, but even then it is compelling
If you're going to keep folk inside, you may as well give them the chance at least to do something useful and productive. But it costs money.
The idea that there's anything even approaching a 3:1 differential in reporting is, I think, misguided.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Yes - very ordinary people at war. Doing their best, trying not to fail.
He played sax in the backing group for the Playboy tour....
Of the few friends of mine who have been in prison most say they spent a good deal of their time reading letters to inmates and writing return letters on their behalf - but that was around 10-15 years ago so not sure if things have changed since then.
Mind blowing for an unjaded teenage viewer. And even back then I worked out that whoever did the sound was someone very special indeed.
and Orys is now up to 499 Russian tanks.
does anybody have a '500 Lost Russian Tanks' dance Ready?
It does so much more than is obvious on a first look.
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-12-07/no-10-staff-joke-in-leaked-recording-about-christmas-party-they-later-denied
People then say well that's not fair, rich getting richer etc. But that isn't quite true, but they are making a full repayment of say £50k loan, rather than somebody on never earns a salary of more than say £40k is never getting close to making that level of repayment over the 30 year repayment period (which makes the interest rate on a personal level irrelevant).
We are all going to pay when the write down of these unpaid loans starts hitting in 20 years time.
Is this a coded way of telling us that the real story is that the rest of the Cabinet doesn't think it's wrong to break the law?
But what education you can expect someone to do for 36 years? Is there even any point at all? Surely it would be better to get them to do some sort of menial work, contribute to the (very significant) costs of their incarceration.
If they aren't coming out, ever, then why not execute people? Why are we forking out half a million quid to keep them alive? I'm not at all in favour of the death penalty, but perhaps this is where this trend is leading.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
It is simply astonishing to me that Conservative MPs are prepared to tolerate this. Maybe Angela Rayner's description of them wasn't so far off the mark, after all.
"I'm not surprised that this “mathematician and physicist” who was just humiliated by
@benshapiro won a prestigious award. That’s exactly the problem."
https://twitter.com/BarrettWilson6/status/1513692226278285317?s=20&t=8NMdyiRrIkvs2EmtEN27Gw
Most people won't care about Sunak Green card story, its all very complex, everybody cares about petrol being super expensive, doing the weekly shop costing a lot more, etc etc etc.
Same in White House under POTUS 45. And ditto for Kremlin under Vladimir the Terrible.
I do not expect him to survive in office much longer and I am far from certain that Rishi will not walk anyway
The cost of living crisis matters, and in two years time it will still be being talked about. Partygate will not.
If Boris thought that having a slice of cake in the office during a workday was not a "party" then him saying he knew about no parties was not a lie, even if the Police have found it to be illegal.
I've had cake at work before for a colleague's birthday, or for my own, and not once would I have ever considered that to be a "party". If a doctor or a nurse brought a cake with them for a colleague's birthday during the pandemic and they had that and sang happy birthday would that be a "party" in your eyes or just a part of their workday?
The law was broken, the laws should never have been there in the first place so there's a bit of karmic justice that he's been hoist by his own petard. However that doesn't demonstrate a lie has been told, the law was so draconian it didn't require what people would think to be "parties" for a breach of the law.
In order to prove lying you'd need proof that it wasn't inadvertent surely?
The high-profile case puts Gov. Kathy Hochul in a difficult position as she seeks a full term this year while tethered to Brian Benjamin.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/12/hochul-tough-choices-lieutenant-governor-arrest-new-york-00024700
Nobody in modern New York history has been more vocal a champion of the often-obscure office of lieutenant governor than Kathy Hochul, who served seven years in that post before she was elevated to the governorship last August.
Now the job has become a political albatross for Hochul. The person she wound up picking for that role — then state Sen. Brian Benjamin — has been indicted in an alleged bribery scheme. On Tuesday, he was arrested and arraigned in federal court in Manhattan. By the end of the day, he announced he had resigned to focus on “explaining in court why his actions were laudable—not criminal.”
The high-profile case puts Hochul in a difficult position as she seeks a full term this year while tethered to Benjamin. While Benjamin is out of office, Hochul could be forced to maintain political ties to Benjamin through the June primary election — and maybe run on the same ticket in November should he win the Democratic nomination and turns down options for bowing out of the race.
Just five days ago, Hochul said she had the “utmost confidence” in her lieutenant, even after reports emerged that he had been subpoenaed.
“While the legal process plays out, it is clear to both of us that he cannot continue to serve as Lieutenant Governor,” she said in a statement on Tuesday evening. “New Yorkers deserve absolute confidence in their government, and I will continue working every day to deliver for them.”
Hochul has not been tied to the allegations. The charges involve discretionary money Benjamin distributed as a state senator, and the indictment alleges he lied when the governor was screening him for his position. . . .
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1514239771941482497
German MP from FDP and spokesperson for defense policy Marcus Faber said they have agreed with the coalition on the provision of heavy weapons to Ukraine.
This remains to be determined and implemented but "when there is such a unified will, there is always a way," he added.
Then you can use whatever standard of proof you want to say "nah - never again..."
Re breaking the law that for me is not as cut and dry and I would be willing to let him off, for instance a speeding fine, and even a very minor lockdown offence. If he was taking the piss and there are multiple lockdown offences or serious lockdown breaches then no for this as well mainly because he was imposing them.
@DAaronovitch
·
1h
Can I be the first to complain that
@ChrisMasonBBC
is hopelessly biased against everything I believe in?
No idea about his personal life, but if you have kids, I imagine it would take a fair bit of convincing that all of having to travel all over the place at the drop of a hat isn't ideal.
Personally NOT a fan of Bill Clinton. But as President, he and his administration were simply NOT in the same rogues gallery as Johnson, Trump & Putin.
However Johnson has a comparable relationship with the truth to Clinton. There's shades of "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" then discussing the meaning of words to claim there was no lie etc about all this.
Obama and Merkel seem much more guilty of rolling over to Putin,
And then there's their policy on China.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
1. The legal infraction was minor and can be ignored Why does the number of these matter? They are either irrelevant or they are not
2. The problem is the rules, not breaking them
3. Its not the time to change leader cos Ukraine
The brazen twat is going to bluster his way through this and the sycophants are going to say "yes Mr Boris sir".
Its immoral. But so are they.
Again, he's shameless and the Parliamentary Cowards' Party (PCP) are utterly spineless.
Boris is going nowhere, then or now.
If so, that sounds miserable.
We don't often agree – but I would rather we saw more of Bartholomew and those like him with independent minds.
He will live to regret it. An honourable resignation is far better than dishonourably being hounded out of office.
Not that most Tory MPs and some of their supporters on here have any honour.
By some distance the worst candidate to ever fill the role: more of a mouthpiece than a journalist.
One hopes Mason will be better. He could scarcely be worse.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-aibUV-Ltg
People always remark that footballers are better now than they ever were, computers have made extraordinary improvements but until now we hadn’t seen journalism make that mighty leap until this moment.
Congratulations Ned and congratulations Scott_xP for getting the scoop on this scoop.