Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
It could be that he is that that people believe is a rare thing in politicians - a person with genuine integrity. I think you can probably also list Brown, Major and Thatcher, and perhaps Cameron in that list. It is not as rare as apologists for Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Brown had integrity. You are having a laugh right. A man who knew nothing about 2 guys sitting right next to him organising disgusting smear campaigns.
OK, strike him from the list. I was trying to have a bit of balance. Robin Cook then. Ugly fecker, but he had integrity.
She says “in the mind of Boris Johnson government here in the north” involves placating dup on protocol. “Our absolute dismay” that this is where we are at.
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
Was it hovering or how much did you have to lead it?
Hovering outside the kitchen fucking window. Mrs DA was out and knows nothing about it. It's going to be a lovely surprise for her.
Has she not noticed the massive shotgun hole in the shattered kitchen window yet?
Anyway, good on you. What was it doing spying through your kitchen window. ****. 'em!
I reckon it's some sort of semi-sophisticated rural burglary operation. Flying ISTAR missions to look for quad bikes, etc. to nick.
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
It could be that he is that that people believe is a rare thing in politicians - a person with genuine integrity. I think you can probably also list Brown, Major and Thatcher, and perhaps Cameron in that list. It is not as rare as apologists for Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Brown had integrity. You are having a laugh right. A man who knew nothing about 2 guys sitting right next to him organising disgusting smear campaigns.
OK, strike him from the list. I was trying to have a bit of balance. Robin Cook then. Ugly fecker, but he had integrity.
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
It had to be reasonably necessary for work. They could, for example, have given everyone an hour to go to a takeout or eat alone outdoors at a pub etc. Inconvenient, but that's what the rest of us were stuck with. Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there. 'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse. Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
Still doesn’t answer the question though, what exactly are you proving they did wrong, even for just an advisory note?
I'm unable to report facts or figures, I'm a newshound!
I have a scoop - the cabinet office have not confirmed to me the price or colour of Boris Johnson's pants and whether they are tax payer funded
If, as you imply, the wardrobe is unimportant, why is the government set on keeping it secret?
I mean the story is already out. A custom built wardrobe was put in overnight. It's not going to be millions of public funds. Huff are hoping for a figure so they can do a full pearl clutch piece. They dont care what the figure is.
Without a figure we can imagine all sorts going on. Just release the figure, not make it the Secret Wardobe scandal.
I suppose the calculation is who exactly is going to be wasting much spleen venting on the great wardrobe Profumo affair, so they can afford to irritate the Huff
Narniagate as Blanche said, there is something obviously special about this wardrobe. It’s had a portal installed, probably to the off license.
Party wardrobe. Custom party out of touch food bank gate. Huff are on to them.
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
Was it hovering or how much did you have to lead it?
Hovering outside the kitchen fucking window. Mrs DA was out and knows nothing about it. It's going to be a lovely surprise for her.
Has she not noticed the massive shotgun hole in the shattered kitchen window yet?
Anyway, good on you. What was it doing spying through your kitchen window. ****. 'em!
I reckon it's some sort of semi-sophisticated rural burglary operation. Flying ISTAR missions to look for quad bikes, etc. to nick.
Well shooting to he ****** down should be viewed as a civic duty, public service. Good work!
I'm unable to report facts or figures, I'm a newshound!
I have a scoop - the cabinet office have not confirmed to me the price or colour of Boris Johnson's pants and whether they are tax payer funded
If, as you imply, the wardrobe is unimportant, why is the government set on keeping it secret?
Wardrobegate. We demand answers.
First question. If they simply answered surely it would be a brief story quickly forgotten - by not answering the fools have erected a huge sign - LOOK HERE, LOOK AT THIS,
I saw a man pushing a lion and a witch into a wardrobe. I asked him what he was doing, he said "Narnia business".
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
Amusing, but I suspect that will be their excuse to revoke your shotgun certificate.
We've all seen footage of those drones dropping bombs in Ukraine. I was acting in self defence, your honour....
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
It had to be reasonably necessary for work. They could, for example, have given everyone an hour to go to a takeout or eat alone outdoors at a pub etc. Inconvenient, but that's what the rest of us were stuck with. Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there. 'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse. Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
Still doesn’t answer the question though, what exactly are you proving they did wrong, even for just an advisory note?
They need to show the meal and being 'gathered together we 15' was reasonably necessary for work purposes, or rather the police merely need to say they do not believe it was and a breach of the guidelines and law, technical or otherwise, has occurred
Edit - 15 people were not allowed to eat together indoors except where reasonably necessary for work. 15 people did, the onus is on them to show it was reasonably necessary
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
It could be that he is that that people believe is a rare thing in politicians - a person with genuine integrity. I think you can probably also list Brown, Major and Thatcher, and perhaps Cameron in that list. It is not as rare as apologists for Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Brown had integrity. You are having a laugh right. A man who knew nothing about 2 guys sitting right next to him organising disgusting smear campaigns.
OK, strike him from the list. I was trying to have a bit of balance. Robin Cook then. Ugly fecker, but he had integrity.
What about his dalliance with Gaynor?
Forgotten about that. Power is a strange aphrodisiac. You would think it impossible for Robin Cook or John Prescott to find anyone to have a dalliance with, but apparently not.
But the dogs bodies down the chain, no extra days off for you.
When I was there, management always used to say that it was a better motivator to offer "aspirational pay". That is, people would work harder now for the opportunity to earn more money when they were more senior.
She says “in the mind of Boris Johnson government here in the north” involves placating dup on protocol. “Our absolute dismay” that this is where we are at.
It is touch and go as to whether Corbyn would have been a worse Prime Minister, and he was a solid 0/10 rating for the role.
But the dogs bodies down the chain, no extra days off for you.
When I was there, management always used to say that it was a better motivator to offer "aspirational pay". That is, people would work harder now for the opportunity to earn more money when they were more senior.
I was never completely convinced by the theory.
Sounds like the drug dealer economy....corner boy on minimum wage, keeping them keen.
Foaming, madcap, swivel-eyed Remoanerism from the *checks notes* Associate Editor of the Daily Telegraph.
The FT article Warner’s commenting on, by Andrew Posen, is decidedly more punchy in tone than Warner’s tweet. I referenced a blog post pointing out the economic damage of Brexit a couple of weeks ago that was in turn referencing Posen, and got a scolding from Leon for my lack of understanding of economics.
Well, I happily concede I don’t understand economics. But I also don’t distrust experts. If the FT are happy to publish Posen and a senior member of staff from the DT agrees with the argument, that’s good enough for me.
Foaming, madcap, swivel-eyed Remoanerism from the *checks notes* Associate Editor of the Daily Telegraph.
The FT article Warner’s commenting on, by Andrew Posen, is decidedly more punchy in tone than Warner’s tweet. I referenced a blog post pointing out the economic damage of Brexit a couple of weeks ago that was in turn referencing Posen, and got a scolding from Leon for my lack of understanding of economics.
Well, I happily concede I don’t understand economics. But I also don’t distrust experts. If the FT are happy to publish Posen and a senior member of staff from the DT agrees with the argument, that’s good enough for me.
I looked at his twitter site just to make sure there wasn't a "/2 but it is still well worth it" tweet. But there doesn't seem to be. Instead, I found this ...
'Best policy on the NI Protocol is not to pass a law to suspend it, which apart from threatening relations with the US is just political signalling of little immediate practical significance, but indefinite extension of grace periods, putting the ball firmly in the EU's court.'
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
It had to be reasonably necessary for work. They could, for example, have given everyone an hour to go to a takeout or eat alone outdoors at a pub etc. Inconvenient, but that's what the rest of us were stuck with. Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there. 'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse. Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
Still doesn’t answer the question though, what exactly are you proving they did wrong, even for just an advisory note?
They need to show the meal and being 'gathered together we 15' was reasonably necessary for work purposes, or rather the police merely need to say they do not believe it was and a breach of the guidelines and law, technical or otherwise, has occurred
Edit - 15 people were not allowed to eat together indoors except where reasonably necessary for work. 15 people did, the onus is on them to show it was reasonably necessary
Shouldn’t be too difficult that? Top politicians in election campaign wouldn’t expect to be standard hours, and to make the most of all in one place opportunities for days wash up and planning. Especially as they passed police phone and server logs to prove they were working, can’t really leave police with much of a doubt?
Foaming, madcap, swivel-eyed Remoanerism from the *checks notes* Associate Editor of the Daily Telegraph.
The FT article Warner’s commenting on, by Andrew Posen, is decidedly more punchy in tone than Warner’s tweet. I referenced a blog post pointing out the economic damage of Brexit a couple of weeks ago that was in turn referencing Posen, and got a scolding from Leon for my lack of understanding of economics.
Well, I happily concede I don’t understand economics. But I also don’t distrust experts. If the FT are happy to publish Posen and a senior member of staff from the DT agrees with the argument, that’s good enough for me.
I looked at his twitter site just to make sure there wasn't a "/2 but it is still well worth it" tweet. But there doesn't seem to be. Instead, I found this ...
'Best policy on the NI Protocol is not to pass a law to suspend it, which apart from threatening relations with the US is just political signalling of little immediate practical significance, but indefinite extension of grace periods, putting the ball firmly in the EU's court.'
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
Amusing, but I suspect that will be their excuse to revoke your shotgun certificate.
We've all seen footage of those drones dropping bombs in Ukraine. I was acting in self defence, your honour....
“FREE THE PB ONE” We are all behind you Ace! Even though you don’t know who we are.
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
It had to be reasonably necessary for work. They could, for example, have given everyone an hour to go to a takeout or eat alone outdoors at a pub etc. Inconvenient, but that's what the rest of us were stuck with. Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there. 'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse. Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
Still doesn’t answer the question though, what exactly are you proving they did wrong, even for just an advisory note?
They need to show the meal and being 'gathered together we 15' was reasonably necessary for work purposes, or rather the police merely need to say they do not believe it was and a breach of the guidelines and law, technical or otherwise, has occurred
Edit - 15 people were not allowed to eat together indoors except where reasonably necessary for work. 15 people did, the onus is on them to show it was reasonably necessary
Shouldn’t be too difficult that? Top politicians in election campaign wouldn’t expect to be standard hours, and to make the most of all in one place opportunities for wash up and planning. Especially as they passed police phone and server logs to prove they were working, can’t really leave police with much of a doubt?
Well, given witnesses present have said no work was done and some of them were pissed there's clearly some doubt from some that it was necessary, dilligent work. And 'wash up and planning' do not require you to breach the rules on numbers indoors together. It can be done remotely, via zoom etc. 'Making the most of all in one place opportunities' was indeed explicitly against the guidelines for campaigning during Covid. In person meetings were to be minimized.
Klopp said: "Of course I have thoughts, but in these situations, I think the question is why does it happen?
"I maybe haven't been here long enough to understand the reasons for it. The majority of our supporters are wonderful people - really smart, go through lows and highs, suffer together.
"They wouldn't do it without reason, but it was not something I enjoyed."
Foaming, madcap, swivel-eyed Remoanerism from the *checks notes* Associate Editor of the Daily Telegraph.
The FT article Warner’s commenting on, by Andrew Posen, is decidedly more punchy in tone than Warner’s tweet. I referenced a blog post pointing out the economic damage of Brexit a couple of weeks ago that was in turn referencing Posen, and got a scolding from Leon for my lack of understanding of economics.
Well, I happily concede I don’t understand economics. But I also don’t distrust experts. If the FT are happy to publish Posen and a senior member of staff from the DT agrees with the argument, that’s good enough for me.
I looked at his twitter site just to make sure there wasn't a "/2 but it is still well worth it" tweet. But there doesn't seem to be. Instead, I found this ...
'Best policy on the NI Protocol is not to pass a law to suspend it, which apart from threatening relations with the US is just political signalling of little immediate practical significance, but indefinite extension of grace periods, putting the ball firmly in the EU's court.'
‘Taking back control.’
This refers to grace periods on UK to NI exports, i.e the grace periods effectively allow smuggling into NI, which we don’t care about but the EU do. Your comment would make sense if it were in relation to the extension of grace periods on EU to UK export, at any border. That is a lack-of-taking-control on our part, arguably.
Foaming, madcap, swivel-eyed Remoanerism from the *checks notes* Associate Editor of the Daily Telegraph.
The FT article Warner’s commenting on, by Andrew Posen, is decidedly more punchy in tone than Warner’s tweet. I referenced a blog post pointing out the economic damage of Brexit a couple of weeks ago that was in turn referencing Posen, and got a scolding from Leon for my lack of understanding of economics.
Well, I happily concede I don’t understand economics. But I also don’t distrust experts. If the FT are happy to publish Posen and a senior member of staff from the DT agrees with the argument, that’s good enough for me.
I looked at his twitter site just to make sure there wasn't a "/2 but it is still well worth it" tweet. But there doesn't seem to be. Instead, I found this ...
'Best policy on the NI Protocol is not to pass a law to suspend it, which apart from threatening relations with the US is just political signalling of little immediate practical significance, but indefinite extension of grace periods, putting the ball firmly in the EU's court.'
‘Taking back control.’
Hmm. We've got a majority in NI for Remain, a majority voting for parties not to scrap the NIP, business leaders of lots of kinds saying HMG is flat out lying it's bad for them, and now the DT is rowing back ... I know the DUP don't like dinosaurs, but the comparison with dinosaurs 65 and a bit million years ago is inevitably growing.
Klopp said: "Of course I have thoughts, but in these situations, I think the question is why does it happen?
"I maybe haven't been here long enough to understand the reasons for it. The majority of our supporters are wonderful people - really smart, go through lows and highs, suffer together.
"They wouldn't do it without reason, but it was not something I enjoyed."
Actually I think Klopp has a point. It might be instructive to ask the supporters what is was, exactly, they were booing?
My experience of dealing with companies with large numbers of staff working from home mostly in financial services but also in travel related businesses is that their efficiency has fallen off a cliff. Covid disruption is no longer an acceptable excuse for poor service.
That is the entitlement - not the actual leave taken which can be shuffled between years eg for hols - but plainly the 3 week limit is not sustainable in the long term.
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
It had to be reasonably necessary for work. They could, for example, have given everyone an hour to go to a takeout or eat alone outdoors at a pub etc. Inconvenient, but that's what the rest of us were stuck with. Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there. 'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse. Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
Still doesn’t answer the question though, what exactly are you proving they did wrong, even for just an advisory note?
They need to show the meal and being 'gathered together we 15' was reasonably necessary for work purposes, or rather the police merely need to say they do not believe it was and a breach of the guidelines and law, technical or otherwise, has occurred
Edit - 15 people were not allowed to eat together indoors except where reasonably necessary for work. 15 people did, the onus is on them to show it was reasonably necessary
Shouldn’t be too difficult that? Top politicians in election campaign wouldn’t expect to be standard hours, and to make the most of all in one place opportunities for wash up and planning. Especially as they passed police phone and server logs to prove they were working, can’t really leave police with much of a doubt?
Well, given witnesses present have said no work was done and some of them were pissed there's clearly some doubt from some that it was necessary, dilligent work. And 'wash up and planning' do not require you to breach the rules on numbers indoors together. It can be done remotely, via zoom etc. 'Making the most of all in one place opportunities' was indeed explicitly against the guidelines for campaigning during Covid. In person meetings were to be minimized.
I believe the whistleblowers only went as far as saying some people didn’t do much work, treated it more as a social, and this has in turn been disputed. Can the police actually use that to prove guilt on anyone? Trusting so much on testimony of a whistleblower has caused police so much grief in other cases hasn’t it, they are bound to be cautious, or even have a different take direct from whistleblower witnesses than we have via the media?
Can an old man, long retired comment on the WFH; I've experienced most of the options. Mother, a self-employed retail pharmacist while I was small, ran her own pharmacy in one of those shops, once common, where the proprietor lived behind and over. Her sister was full-time caring (father was away; wartime). Mother could, and did pop into the living area sometimes. Later on I ran a pharmacy but lived elsewhere, so arrived 8.45 or so, left at 6.15 or so. Similar when I worked in a hospital..... go to work, stay until finishing time, go home. However I've also run a consultancy from home, where I had to go to site, come home and write up.
That is the entitlement - not the actual leave taken which can be shuffled between years eg for hols - but plainly the 3 week limit is not sustainable in the long term.
That's an entitlement rather than a requirement, though.
Foaming, madcap, swivel-eyed Remoanerism from the *checks notes* Associate Editor of the Daily Telegraph.
The FT article Warner’s commenting on, by Andrew Posen, is decidedly more punchy in tone than Warner’s tweet. I referenced a blog post pointing out the economic damage of Brexit a couple of weeks ago that was in turn referencing Posen, and got a scolding from Leon for my lack of understanding of economics.
Well, I happily concede I don’t understand economics. But I also don’t distrust experts. If the FT are happy to publish Posen and a senior member of staff from the DT agrees with the argument, that’s good enough for me.
I looked at his twitter site just to make sure there wasn't a "/2 but it is still well worth it" tweet. But there doesn't seem to be. Instead, I found this ...
'Best policy on the NI Protocol is not to pass a law to suspend it, which apart from threatening relations with the US is just political signalling of little immediate practical significance, but indefinite extension of grace periods, putting the ball firmly in the EU's court.'
‘Taking back control.’
This refers to grace periods on UK to NI exports, i.e the grace periods effectively allow smuggling into NI, which we don’t care about but the EU do. Your comment would make sense if it were in relation to the extension of grace periods on EU to UK export, at any border. That is a lack-of-taking-control on our part, arguably.
That is the entitlement - not the actual leave taken which can be shuffled between years eg for hols - but plainly the 3 week limit is not sustainable in the long term.
That's an entitlement rather than a requirement, though.
That's a difference I did take into account. GS can't tell me to work 3 weeks one year and then turn round and say I can only have 3 weeks the next year and **** the carry over.
Edit: and if HMG says it is a right, that sounds like an entitlement to me.
That is the entitlement - not the actual leave taken which can be shuffled between years eg for hols - but plainly the 3 week limit is not sustainable in the long term.
Given even first year junior analysts at Goldmans get £79,000 a year pretty good deal still in my view
That is the entitlement - not the actual leave taken which can be shuffled between years eg for hols - but plainly the 3 week limit is not sustainable in the long term.
Given even first year junior analysts at Goldmans get £79,000 a year pretty good deal still in my view
Personally i found WFH fro more than a day a week very socially isolating and have loved working for nearly 25 years mainly for meeting colleagues and partners face to face . I have no idea if productivity is better at home or not but have no wish to bring work into my home much . Its one thing writing and sending a report from home , I think its another getting told off or even reviewed by yoru boss in your won home .It should be a personal space. What i fear willl happen is that monitoring techniques will be introduced to ensure you are working from home then everyone will find themselves tapping away for 8 hours a day , having no social interaction or even the exercise of a commute. What a miserable existence that will be
That is the entitlement - not the actual leave taken which can be shuffled between years eg for hols - but plainly the 3 week limit is not sustainable in the long term.
That's an entitlement rather than a requirement, though.
That's a difference I did take into account. GS can't tell me to work 3 weeks one year and then turn round and say I can only have 3 weeks the next year and **** the carry over.
Edit: and if HMG says it is a right, that sounds like an entitlement to me.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here.
The government says " you have the right to 28 days holiday" but doesn't set a minimum.
GS is saying "you must take at least 15 days including five consecutive" but (for senior staff) isn't setting a maximum.
My experience of dealing with companies with large numbers of staff working from home mostly in financial services but also in travel related businesses is that their efficiency has fallen off a cliff. Covid disruption is no longer an acceptable excuse for poor service.
Absolutely, my experience of dealing with people working from home it that the work does not happen. Councils I deal with are still doing it, their huge offices remian empty and it is a nightmare as their systems are no longer followed and trying to get payment or an answer from them takes 10 times as long as before.
That is the entitlement - not the actual leave taken which can be shuffled between years eg for hols - but plainly the 3 week limit is not sustainable in the long term.
That's an entitlement rather than a requirement, though.
That's a difference I did take into account. GS can't tell me to work 3 weeks one year and then turn round and say I can only have 3 weeks the next year and **** the carry over.
Edit: and if HMG says it is a right, that sounds like an entitlement to me.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here.
The government says " you have the right to 28 days holiday" but doesn't set a minimum.
GS is saying "you must take at least 15 days including five consecutive" but (for senior staff) isn't setting a maximum.
Beg to differ, this sets a clear minimum (but can include Bank Holidays - though these dont' amount to 13 days a year do they?)
"Most workers who work a 5-day week must receive at least 28 days’ paid annual leave a year. This is the equivalent of 5.6 weeks of holiday."
That is the entitlement - not the actual leave taken which can be shuffled between years eg for hols - but plainly the 3 week limit is not sustainable in the long term.
That's an entitlement rather than a requirement, though.
That's a difference I did take into account. GS can't tell me to work 3 weeks one year and then turn round and say I can only have 3 weeks the next year and **** the carry over.
Edit: and if HMG says it is a right, that sounds like an entitlement to me.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here.
The government says " you have the right to 28 days holiday" but doesn't set a minimum.
GS is saying "you must take at least 15 days including five consecutive" but (for senior staff) isn't setting a maximum.
That 15 days is I suspect is for Americans who get sod all holiday usually...
The government says " you have the right to 28 days holiday" but doesn't set a minimum.
GS is saying "you must take at least 15 days including five consecutive" but (for senior staff) isn't setting a maximum.
Banks and some other financial services companies are required by the regulator to ensure that employees have a minimum of a certain number of consecutive days' holiday annually. It's a bit of an oddity. The reason for it something to do with fraud being easier to cover up if a dishonest employee never takes holiday.
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
That is the entitlement - not the actual leave taken which can be shuffled between years eg for hols - but plainly the 3 week limit is not sustainable in the long term.
That's an entitlement rather than a requirement, though.
That's a difference I did take into account. GS can't tell me to work 3 weeks one year and then turn round and say I can only have 3 weeks the next year and **** the carry over.
Edit: and if HMG says it is a right, that sounds like an entitlement to me.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here.
The government says " you have the right to 28 days holiday" but doesn't set a minimum.
GS is saying "you must take at least 15 days including five consecutive" but (for senior staff) isn't setting a maximum.
Beg to differ, this sets a clear minimum (but can include Bank Holidays - though these dont' amount to 13 days a year do they?)
"Most workers who work a 5-day week must receive at least 28 days’ paid annual leave a year. This is the equivalent of 5.6 weeks of holiday."
That's a clear minimum entitlement - it doesn't say anything about how many days an employee must actually take.
My experience of dealing with companies with large numbers of staff working from home mostly in financial services but also in travel related businesses is that their efficiency has fallen off a cliff. Covid disruption is no longer an acceptable excuse for poor service.
Absolutely, my experience of dealing with people working from home it that the work does not happen. Councils I deal with are still doing it, their huge offices remian empty and it is a nightmare as their systems are no longer followed and trying to get payment or an answer from them takes 10 times as long as before.
I think to sum up question in this thread header, No, most posts in reply a surprisingly on topic thread, we DONT think Boris Johnson has got it wrong, or out of step with public opinion on this.
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
It had to be reasonably necessary for work. They could, for example, have given everyone an hour to go to a takeout or eat alone outdoors at a pub etc. Inconvenient, but that's what the rest of us were stuck with. Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there. 'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse. Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
Still doesn’t answer the question though, what exactly are you proving they did wrong, even for just an advisory note?
They need to show the meal and being 'gathered together we 15' was reasonably necessary for work purposes, or rather the police merely need to say they do not believe it was and a breach of the guidelines and law, technical or otherwise, has occurred
Edit - 15 people were not allowed to eat together indoors except where reasonably necessary for work. 15 people did, the onus is on them to show it was reasonably necessary
Shouldn’t be too difficult that? Top politicians in election campaign wouldn’t expect to be standard hours, and to make the most of all in one place opportunities for wash up and planning. Especially as they passed police phone and server logs to prove they were working, can’t really leave police with much of a doubt?
Well, given witnesses present have said no work was done and some of them were pissed there's clearly some doubt from some that it was necessary, dilligent work. And 'wash up and planning' do not require you to breach the rules on numbers indoors together. It can be done remotely, via zoom etc. 'Making the most of all in one place opportunities' was indeed explicitly against the guidelines for campaigning during Covid. In person meetings were to be minimized.
I believe the whistleblowers only went as far as saying some people didn’t do much work, treated it more as a social, and this has in turn been disputed. Can the police actually use that to prove guilt on anyone? Trusting so much on testimony of a whistleblower has caused police so much grief in other cases hasn’t it, they are bound to be cautious, or even have a different take direct from whistleblower witnesses than we have via the media?
Well, we will see what they have gathered I guess but essentially if there's enough 'doubt' they can fudge it, say it looks like there may have been a breach, that they aren't issuing retrospective fines but have spoken to all concerned to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities 'should such a situation arise in future'. Or 'spoken to everyone about the importance of following the law in its entirety' And Starmer is left with a tricky choice. Also note there is no need to 'prove guilt' for a FPN, they just need to be reasonably sure it would hold up if taken to court in dispute.
Edit - and from a public perspective, it remains the case that we all had to jump through stupid hoops, so there is simply no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps, but it would have been convenient for a lot of us to do a lot of things we couldn't
This could be a thing. 😟. Did UK government get its deal with RWANDA by promising to extradite people living in UK the Rwandan claim are criminals and up till now UK not handed over?
“British judges have blocked extradition on the grounds the suspects would not receive a fair trial in Rwanda.”
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
That's because we already have a security arrangement with Sweden independent of (if not entirely orthogonal to) NATO.
Anyone listening to the governor of the Bank of England being questioned by the Treasury Select Committee would not be comforted by his comments, as the combination of the Ukraine war with it's effect on the supply of wheat to the world, to the likelyhood of oil and gas price hikes continuing for an inderminnate period as reliance on Russia as a supplier is sidelined, and the looming disaster of the effects of covid and China's zero covid policy, leaves them virtually powerless to mitigate the economic damage in a meaningful way
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
Wow! You posted all that just to get a pathetic dig in? I hope you're not WFH as well...
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
Anyone listening to the governor of the Bank of England being questioned by the Treasury Select Committee would not be comforted by his comments, as the combination of the Ukraine war with it's effect on the supply of wheat to the world, to the likelyhood of oil and gas price hikes continuing for an inderminnate period as reliance on Russia as a supplier is sidelined, and the looming disaster of the effects of covid and China's zero covid policy, leaves them virtually powerless to mitigate the economic damage in a meaningful way
Any excuse to avoid raising interest rates...
However, nothing he is saying there is incorrect but with interest rates set at current levels you would be insane not to maximise your borrowing...
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
Moldova and Austria are the only 2 left (Belarus is pro russian). Moldova vacillates between pro Russian and pro European and is very unlikely to join. Austria.... not sure they are bothered and is more central Europe anyway Serbia is an ally of Russia
That is the entitlement - not the actual leave taken which can be shuffled between years eg for hols - but plainly the 3 week limit is not sustainable in the long term.
That's an entitlement rather than a requirement, though.
That's a difference I did take into account. GS can't tell me to work 3 weeks one year and then turn round and say I can only have 3 weeks the next year and **** the carry over.
Edit: and if HMG says it is a right, that sounds like an entitlement to me.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here.
The government says " you have the right to 28 days holiday" but doesn't set a minimum.
GS is saying "you must take at least 15 days including five consecutive" but (for senior staff) isn't setting a maximum.
Beg to differ, this sets a clear minimum (but can include Bank Holidays - though these dont' amount to 13 days a year do they?)
"Most workers who work a 5-day week must receive at least 28 days’ paid annual leave a year. This is the equivalent of 5.6 weeks of holiday."
That's a clear minimum entitlement - it doesn't say anything about how many days an employee must actually take.
Quite, and if they are sacked for taking their entitlement then they have a clear cut case for constructive dismissal.
Edit: what's so odd is that when one takes BHs into account there's not that much difference with the law, so they are obviously breaching that for not much margin.
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
Wow! You posted all that just to get a pathetic dig in? I hope you're not WFH as well...
Must be all these strange Swedes he seems to knows. All the ones I've been in contact with seem to be pretty cool about the UK's approach to Ukraine and support for Swedish accession to NATO.
Anyone listening to the governor of the Bank of England being questioned by the Treasury Select Committee would not be comforted by his comments, as the combination of the Ukraine war with it's effect on the supply of wheat to the world, to the likelyhood of oil and gas price hikes continuing for an inderminnate period as reliance on Russia as a supplier is sidelined, and the looming disaster of the effects of covid and China's zero covid policy, leaves them virtually powerless to mitigate the economic damage in a meaningful way
I think I'm right in saying UK inflation was at 5% before the Ukraine crisis started, partly as a result of Bailey cranking up the money printing machine to bankroll Johnson and Sunak.
You would think the tory MPs would be grateful. Now they want to put Bailey in the dock. Imagine if Bailey had refused to keep printing at some point.
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
Highly predictable comment from the most anti UK poster on this site
Many would reject this attitude not least with the current actions of Germany and France enabling Putin's war machine to continue
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
It had to be reasonably necessary for work. They could, for example, have given everyone an hour to go to a takeout or eat alone outdoors at a pub etc. Inconvenient, but that's what the rest of us were stuck with. Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there. 'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse. Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
Still doesn’t answer the question though, what exactly are you proving they did wrong, even for just an advisory note?
They need to show the meal and being 'gathered together we 15' was reasonably necessary for work purposes, or rather the police merely need to say they do not believe it was and a breach of the guidelines and law, technical or otherwise, has occurred
Edit - 15 people were not allowed to eat together indoors except where reasonably necessary for work. 15 people did, the onus is on them to show it was reasonably necessary
Shouldn’t be too difficult that? Top politicians in election campaign wouldn’t expect to be standard hours, and to make the most of all in one place opportunities for wash up and planning. Especially as they passed police phone and server logs to prove they were working, can’t really leave police with much of a doubt?
Well, given witnesses present have said no work was done and some of them were pissed there's clearly some doubt from some that it was necessary, dilligent work. And 'wash up and planning' do not require you to breach the rules on numbers indoors together. It can be done remotely, via zoom etc. 'Making the most of all in one place opportunities' was indeed explicitly against the guidelines for campaigning during Covid. In person meetings were to be minimized.
I believe the whistleblowers only went as far as saying some people didn’t do much work, treated it more as a social, and this has in turn been disputed. Can the police actually use that to prove guilt on anyone? Trusting so much on testimony of a whistleblower has caused police so much grief in other cases hasn’t it, they are bound to be cautious, or even have a different take direct from whistleblower witnesses than we have via the media?
Well, we will see what they have gathered I guess but essentially if there's enough 'doubt' they can fudge it, say it looks like there may have been a breach, that they aren't issuing retrospective fines but have spoken to all concerned to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities 'should such a situation arise in future'. Or 'spoken to everyone about the importance of following the law in its entirety' And Starmer is left with a tricky choice. Also note there is no need to 'prove guilt' for a FPN, they just need to be reasonably sure it would hold up if taken to court in dispute.
Edit - and from a public perspective, it remains the case that we all had to jump through stupid hoops, so there is simply no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps, but it would have been convenient for a lot of us to do a lot of things we couldn't
“ Starmer is left with a tricky choice.”. Tricky choice? I think he would declare himself exonerated if the outcome was as you described.
With Partygate, where there was no excuse to be socialising indoors with a beer, but they paid taxpayers money to a photographer to show them socialising indoors with a beer, open and shut case not likely to go to court. Anyone at beergate though, as it’s not so obvious to show wrongdoing, might feel aggrieved enough to take it to court, police will have to be very “reasonably sure” they wouldn’t lose in court.
“no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps”. Absolutely right. But it’s not what they did though, they worked, grabbed takeaway whilst working. 100% smack bang in middle of rules at the time.
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
That's because we already have a security arrangement with Sweden independent of (if not entirely orthogonal to) NATO.
Nope. The UK is just one among a very long list of states who have made the same independent interim security arrangements with Sweden. And the UK arrangement is not even deemed significant enough for the foreign minister to even mention it. She obviously doesn’t read PB.
Anyone listening to the governor of the Bank of England being questioned by the Treasury Select Committee would not be comforted by his comments, as the combination of the Ukraine war with it's effect on the supply of wheat to the world, to the likelyhood of oil and gas price hikes continuing for an inderminnate period as reliance on Russia as a supplier is sidelined, and the looming disaster of the effects of covid and China's zero covid policy, leaves them virtually powerless to mitigate the economic damage in a meaningful way
I think I'm right in saying UK inflation was at 5% before the Ukraine crisis started, partly as a result of Bailey cranking up the money printing machine to bankroll Johnson and Sunak.
You would think the tory MPs would be grateful. Now they want to put Bailey in the dock. Imagine if Bailey had refused to keep printing at some point.
Nonsense. The government are not to blame for inflation, the bottom line is the Bank of England is INDEPENDENT.
An INDEPENDENT institution messing up its main job controlling inflation, and hypocrites trying to blame government for this.
Anyone listening to the governor of the Bank of England being questioned by the Treasury Select Committee would not be comforted by his comments, as the combination of the Ukraine war with it's effect on the supply of wheat to the world, to the likelyhood of oil and gas price hikes continuing for an inderminnate period as reliance on Russia as a supplier is sidelined, and the looming disaster of the effects of covid and China's zero covid policy, leaves them virtually powerless to mitigate the economic damage in a meaningful way
I think I'm right in saying UK inflation was at 5% before the Ukraine crisis started, partly as a result of Bailey cranking up the money printing machine to bankroll Johnson and Sunak.
You would think the tory MPs would be grateful. Now they want to put Bailey in the dock. Imagine if Bailey had refused to keep printing at some point.
Nonsense. The government are not to blame for inflation, the bottom line is the Bank of England is INDEPENDENT.
An INDEPENDENT institution messing up its main job controlling inflation, and hypocrites trying to blame government for this.
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
It had to be reasonably necessary for work. They could, for example, have given everyone an hour to go to a takeout or eat alone outdoors at a pub etc. Inconvenient, but that's what the rest of us were stuck with. Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there. 'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse. Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
Still doesn’t answer the question though, what exactly are you proving they did wrong, even for just an advisory note?
They need to show the meal and being 'gathered together we 15' was reasonably necessary for work purposes, or rather the police merely need to say they do not believe it was and a breach of the guidelines and law, technical or otherwise, has occurred
Edit - 15 people were not allowed to eat together indoors except where reasonably necessary for work. 15 people did, the onus is on them to show it was reasonably necessary
Shouldn’t be too difficult that? Top politicians in election campaign wouldn’t expect to be standard hours, and to make the most of all in one place opportunities for wash up and planning. Especially as they passed police phone and server logs to prove they were working, can’t really leave police with much of a doubt?
Well, given witnesses present have said no work was done and some of them were pissed there's clearly some doubt from some that it was necessary, dilligent work. And 'wash up and planning' do not require you to breach the rules on numbers indoors together. It can be done remotely, via zoom etc. 'Making the most of all in one place opportunities' was indeed explicitly against the guidelines for campaigning during Covid. In person meetings were to be minimized.
I believe the whistleblowers only went as far as saying some people didn’t do much work, treated it more as a social, and this has in turn been disputed. Can the police actually use that to prove guilt on anyone? Trusting so much on testimony of a whistleblower has caused police so much grief in other cases hasn’t it, they are bound to be cautious, or even have a different take direct from whistleblower witnesses than we have via the media?
Well, we will see what they have gathered I guess but essentially if there's enough 'doubt' they can fudge it, say it looks like there may have been a breach, that they aren't issuing retrospective fines but have spoken to all concerned to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities 'should such a situation arise in future'. Or 'spoken to everyone about the importance of following the law in its entirety' And Starmer is left with a tricky choice. Also note there is no need to 'prove guilt' for a FPN, they just need to be reasonably sure it would hold up if taken to court in dispute.
Edit - and from a public perspective, it remains the case that we all had to jump through stupid hoops, so there is simply no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps, but it would have been convenient for a lot of us to do a lot of things we couldn't
“ Starmer is left with a tricky choice.”. Tricky choice? I think he would declare himself exonerated if the outcome was as you described.
With Partygate, where there was no excuse to be socialising indoors with a beer, but they paid taxpayers money to a photographer to show them socialising indoors with a beer, open and shut case not likely to go to court. Anyone at beergate though, as it’s not so obvious to show wrongdoing, might feel aggrieved enough to take it to court, police will have to be very “reasonably sure” they wouldn’t lose in court.
“no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps”. Absolutely right. But it’s not what they did though, they worked, grabbed takeaway whilst working. 100% smack bang in middle of rules at the time.
He declares himself a lot of things. Others will differ. And it will taint him in the eyes of many.
They did not 'grab a takeaway', the meal was pre-planned, it does not state on the plan that it is a working meal, some have said no work took place, others differ. Time will tell, but it's certainly impossible to conclude either it was legal or not at this stage as we weren't there, we can only believe what we believe to be the case.
Anyone listening to the governor of the Bank of England being questioned by the Treasury Select Committee would not be comforted by his comments, as the combination of the Ukraine war with it's effect on the supply of wheat to the world, to the likelyhood of oil and gas price hikes continuing for an inderminnate period as reliance on Russia as a supplier is sidelined, and the looming disaster of the effects of covid and China's zero covid policy, leaves them virtually powerless to mitigate the economic damage in a meaningful way
I think I'm right in saying UK inflation was at 5% before the Ukraine crisis started, partly as a result of Bailey cranking up the money printing machine to bankroll Johnson and Sunak.
You would think the tory MPs would be grateful. Now they want to put Bailey in the dock. Imagine if Bailey had refused to keep printing at some point.
Nonsense. The government are not to blame for inflation, the bottom line is the Bank of England is INDEPENDENT.
An INDEPENDENT institution messing up its main job controlling inflation, and hypocrites trying to blame government for this.
So Bailey should have refused to bankroll furlough and bounceback beyond a certain point, on the pretext inflation would inevitably surge....?
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
It had to be reasonably necessary for work. They could, for example, have given everyone an hour to go to a takeout or eat alone outdoors at a pub etc. Inconvenient, but that's what the rest of us were stuck with. Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there. 'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse. Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
Still doesn’t answer the question though, what exactly are you proving they did wrong, even for just an advisory note?
They need to show the meal and being 'gathered together we 15' was reasonably necessary for work purposes, or rather the police merely need to say they do not believe it was and a breach of the guidelines and law, technical or otherwise, has occurred
Edit - 15 people were not allowed to eat together indoors except where reasonably necessary for work. 15 people did, the onus is on them to show it was reasonably necessary
Shouldn’t be too difficult that? Top politicians in election campaign wouldn’t expect to be standard hours, and to make the most of all in one place opportunities for wash up and planning. Especially as they passed police phone and server logs to prove they were working, can’t really leave police with much of a doubt?
Well, given witnesses present have said no work was done and some of them were pissed there's clearly some doubt from some that it was necessary, dilligent work. And 'wash up and planning' do not require you to breach the rules on numbers indoors together. It can be done remotely, via zoom etc. 'Making the most of all in one place opportunities' was indeed explicitly against the guidelines for campaigning during Covid. In person meetings were to be minimized.
I believe the whistleblowers only went as far as saying some people didn’t do much work, treated it more as a social, and this has in turn been disputed. Can the police actually use that to prove guilt on anyone? Trusting so much on testimony of a whistleblower has caused police so much grief in other cases hasn’t it, they are bound to be cautious, or even have a different take direct from whistleblower witnesses than we have via the media?
Well, we will see what they have gathered I guess but essentially if there's enough 'doubt' they can fudge it, say it looks like there may have been a breach, that they aren't issuing retrospective fines but have spoken to all concerned to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities 'should such a situation arise in future'. Or 'spoken to everyone about the importance of following the law in its entirety' And Starmer is left with a tricky choice. Also note there is no need to 'prove guilt' for a FPN, they just need to be reasonably sure it would hold up if taken to court in dispute.
Edit - and from a public perspective, it remains the case that we all had to jump through stupid hoops, so there is simply no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps, but it would have been convenient for a lot of us to do a lot of things we couldn't
“ Starmer is left with a tricky choice.”. Tricky choice? I think he would declare himself exonerated if the outcome was as you described.
With Partygate, where there was no excuse to be socialising indoors with a beer, but they paid taxpayers money to a photographer to show them socialising indoors with a beer, open and shut case not likely to go to court. Anyone at beergate though, as it’s not so obvious to show wrongdoing, might feel aggrieved enough to take it to court, police will have to be very “reasonably sure” they wouldn’t lose in court.
“no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps”. Absolutely right. But it’s not what they did though, they worked, grabbed takeaway whilst working. 100% smack bang in middle of rules at the time.
He declares himself a lot of things. Others will differ. And it will taint him in the eyes of many.
They did not 'grab a takeaway', the meal was pre-planned, it does not state on the plan that it is a working meal, some have said no work took place, others differ. Time will tell, but it's certainly impossible to conclude either it was legal or not at this stage as we weren't there, we can only believe what we believe to be the case.
Exactly. We’ll trust the police. 🙂
You know the meal wasn’t in the same room as the working?
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
There are no European Countries left who would want to be in NATO - Serbia definitely wouldn't, Bosnia probably not. Austria is neutral by treaty, Switzerland relies on he fact that you'd have to fight all the way though NATO to get to them....
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
That's because we already have a security arrangement with Sweden independent of (if not entirely orthogonal to) NATO.
Nope. The UK is just one among a very long list of states who have made the same independent interim security arrangements with Sweden. And the UK arrangement is not even deemed significant enough for the foreign minister to even mention it. She obviously doesn’t read PB.
I don't think you can characterise a British Nuclear Warhead as an "etc", as much as you want to belittle the UK.
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
That's because we already have a security arrangement with Sweden independent of (if not entirely orthogonal to) NATO.
Nope. The UK is just one among a very long list of states who have made the same independent interim security arrangements with Sweden. And the UK arrangement is not even deemed significant enough for the foreign minister to even mention it. She obviously doesn’t read PB.
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
That's because we already have a security arrangement with Sweden independent of (if not entirely orthogonal to) NATO.
Nope. The UK is just one among a very long list of states who have made the same independent interim security arrangements with Sweden. And the UK arrangement is not even deemed significant enough for the foreign minister to even mention it. She obviously doesn’t read PB.
No, they just had a press conference with the PM and personal visit from our PM to announce it rather than being part of a list of 'also starrings'
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
That's because we already have a security arrangement with Sweden independent of (if not entirely orthogonal to) NATO.
Nope. The UK is just one among a very long list of states who have made the same independent interim security arrangements with Sweden. And the UK arrangement is not even deemed significant enough for the foreign minister to even mention it. She obviously doesn’t read PB.
Your prejudice against UK and your comments will be warmly welcomed in the Kremlin and by Putin, not so much by Sweden and Finland
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
It had to be reasonably necessary for work. They could, for example, have given everyone an hour to go to a takeout or eat alone outdoors at a pub etc. Inconvenient, but that's what the rest of us were stuck with. Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there. 'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse. Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
Still doesn’t answer the question though, what exactly are you proving they did wrong, even for just an advisory note?
They need to show the meal and being 'gathered together we 15' was reasonably necessary for work purposes, or rather the police merely need to say they do not believe it was and a breach of the guidelines and law, technical or otherwise, has occurred
Edit - 15 people were not allowed to eat together indoors except where reasonably necessary for work. 15 people did, the onus is on them to show it was reasonably necessary
Shouldn’t be too difficult that? Top politicians in election campaign wouldn’t expect to be standard hours, and to make the most of all in one place opportunities for wash up and planning. Especially as they passed police phone and server logs to prove they were working, can’t really leave police with much of a doubt?
Well, given witnesses present have said no work was done and some of them were pissed there's clearly some doubt from some that it was necessary, dilligent work. And 'wash up and planning' do not require you to breach the rules on numbers indoors together. It can be done remotely, via zoom etc. 'Making the most of all in one place opportunities' was indeed explicitly against the guidelines for campaigning during Covid. In person meetings were to be minimized.
I believe the whistleblowers only went as far as saying some people didn’t do much work, treated it more as a social, and this has in turn been disputed. Can the police actually use that to prove guilt on anyone? Trusting so much on testimony of a whistleblower has caused police so much grief in other cases hasn’t it, they are bound to be cautious, or even have a different take direct from whistleblower witnesses than we have via the media?
Well, we will see what they have gathered I guess but essentially if there's enough 'doubt' they can fudge it, say it looks like there may have been a breach, that they aren't issuing retrospective fines but have spoken to all concerned to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities 'should such a situation arise in future'. Or 'spoken to everyone about the importance of following the law in its entirety' And Starmer is left with a tricky choice. Also note there is no need to 'prove guilt' for a FPN, they just need to be reasonably sure it would hold up if taken to court in dispute.
Edit - and from a public perspective, it remains the case that we all had to jump through stupid hoops, so there is simply no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps, but it would have been convenient for a lot of us to do a lot of things we couldn't
“ Starmer is left with a tricky choice.”. Tricky choice? I think he would declare himself exonerated if the outcome was as you described.
With Partygate, where there was no excuse to be socialising indoors with a beer, but they paid taxpayers money to a photographer to show them socialising indoors with a beer, open and shut case not likely to go to court. Anyone at beergate though, as it’s not so obvious to show wrongdoing, might feel aggrieved enough to take it to court, police will have to be very “reasonably sure” they wouldn’t lose in court.
“no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps”. Absolutely right. But it’s not what they did though, they worked, grabbed takeaway whilst working. 100% smack bang in middle of rules at the time.
He declares himself a lot of things. Others will differ. And it will taint him in the eyes of many.
They did not 'grab a takeaway', the meal was pre-planned, it does not state on the plan that it is a working meal, some have said no work took place, others differ. Time will tell, but it's certainly impossible to conclude either it was legal or not at this stage as we weren't there, we can only believe what we believe to be the case.
The video of him stood up drinking beer with people wondering around with no covid precautions being followed does not look good and such "work events" were not happening at that time.
I would be very surprised if Durham Police approve the event and make a statement to that effect. i think the minimum will be "it should not have happened"
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
It had to be reasonably necessary for work. They could, for example, have given everyone an hour to go to a takeout or eat alone outdoors at a pub etc. Inconvenient, but that's what the rest of us were stuck with. Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there. 'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse. Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
Still doesn’t answer the question though, what exactly are you proving they did wrong, even for just an advisory note?
They need to show the meal and being 'gathered together we 15' was reasonably necessary for work purposes, or rather the police merely need to say they do not believe it was and a breach of the guidelines and law, technical or otherwise, has occurred
Edit - 15 people were not allowed to eat together indoors except where reasonably necessary for work. 15 people did, the onus is on them to show it was reasonably necessary
Shouldn’t be too difficult that? Top politicians in election campaign wouldn’t expect to be standard hours, and to make the most of all in one place opportunities for wash up and planning. Especially as they passed police phone and server logs to prove they were working, can’t really leave police with much of a doubt?
Well, given witnesses present have said no work was done and some of them were pissed there's clearly some doubt from some that it was necessary, dilligent work. And 'wash up and planning' do not require you to breach the rules on numbers indoors together. It can be done remotely, via zoom etc. 'Making the most of all in one place opportunities' was indeed explicitly against the guidelines for campaigning during Covid. In person meetings were to be minimized.
I believe the whistleblowers only went as far as saying some people didn’t do much work, treated it more as a social, and this has in turn been disputed. Can the police actually use that to prove guilt on anyone? Trusting so much on testimony of a whistleblower has caused police so much grief in other cases hasn’t it, they are bound to be cautious, or even have a different take direct from whistleblower witnesses than we have via the media?
Well, we will see what they have gathered I guess but essentially if there's enough 'doubt' they can fudge it, say it looks like there may have been a breach, that they aren't issuing retrospective fines but have spoken to all concerned to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities 'should such a situation arise in future'. Or 'spoken to everyone about the importance of following the law in its entirety' And Starmer is left with a tricky choice. Also note there is no need to 'prove guilt' for a FPN, they just need to be reasonably sure it would hold up if taken to court in dispute.
Edit - and from a public perspective, it remains the case that we all had to jump through stupid hoops, so there is simply no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps, but it would have been convenient for a lot of us to do a lot of things we couldn't
“ Starmer is left with a tricky choice.”. Tricky choice? I think he would declare himself exonerated if the outcome was as you described.
With Partygate, where there was no excuse to be socialising indoors with a beer, but they paid taxpayers money to a photographer to show them socialising indoors with a beer, open and shut case not likely to go to court. Anyone at beergate though, as it’s not so obvious to show wrongdoing, might feel aggrieved enough to take it to court, police will have to be very “reasonably sure” they wouldn’t lose in court.
“no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps”. Absolutely right. But it’s not what they did though, they worked, grabbed takeaway whilst working. 100% smack bang in middle of rules at the time.
He declares himself a lot of things. Others will differ. And it will taint him in the eyes of many.
They did not 'grab a takeaway', the meal was pre-planned, it does not state on the plan that it is a working meal, some have said no work took place, others differ. Time will tell, but it's certainly impossible to conclude either it was legal or not at this stage as we weren't there, we can only believe what we believe to be the case.
The video of him stood up drinking beer with people wondering around with no covid precautions being followed does not look good and such "work events" were not happening at that time.
I would be very surprised if Durham Police approve the event and make a statement to that effect. i think the minimum will be "it should not have happened"
Anyone listening to the governor of the Bank of England being questioned by the Treasury Select Committee would not be comforted by his comments, as the combination of the Ukraine war with it's effect on the supply of wheat to the world, to the likelyhood of oil and gas price hikes continuing for an inderminnate period as reliance on Russia as a supplier is sidelined, and the looming disaster of the effects of covid and China's zero covid policy, leaves them virtually powerless to mitigate the economic damage in a meaningful way
I think I'm right in saying UK inflation was at 5% before the Ukraine crisis started, partly as a result of Bailey cranking up the money printing machine to bankroll Johnson and Sunak.
You would think the tory MPs would be grateful. Now they want to put Bailey in the dock. Imagine if Bailey had refused to keep printing at some point.
Nonsense. The government are not to blame for inflation, the bottom line is the Bank of England is INDEPENDENT.
An INDEPENDENT institution messing up its main job controlling inflation, and hypocrites trying to blame government for this.
So, you’re a “Lib Dem” are you?
You fail the duck test.
Oh dear you are having a terrible afternoon bulldozey, wrong with every post. Maybe you should log off log back in again to see if your posts can be any better. What I posted is 100% accurate - Bank of England independent, it’s main responsibility control inflation - unless you want to state Boris can move interest rates up an down?
In what persons mind are Lib Dems ever left wing? libdems is all right of centre stuff, individual choice individual freedom, and liberalism, in every way, life, love and money. Like all my posts 🙂
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
It had to be reasonably necessary for work. They could, for example, have given everyone an hour to go to a takeout or eat alone outdoors at a pub etc. Inconvenient, but that's what the rest of us were stuck with. Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there. 'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse. Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
Still doesn’t answer the question though, what exactly are you proving they did wrong, even for just an advisory note?
They need to show the meal and being 'gathered together we 15' was reasonably necessary for work purposes, or rather the police merely need to say they do not believe it was and a breach of the guidelines and law, technical or otherwise, has occurred
Edit - 15 people were not allowed to eat together indoors except where reasonably necessary for work. 15 people did, the onus is on them to show it was reasonably necessary
Shouldn’t be too difficult that? Top politicians in election campaign wouldn’t expect to be standard hours, and to make the most of all in one place opportunities for wash up and planning. Especially as they passed police phone and server logs to prove they were working, can’t really leave police with much of a doubt?
Well, given witnesses present have said no work was done and some of them were pissed there's clearly some doubt from some that it was necessary, dilligent work. And 'wash up and planning' do not require you to breach the rules on numbers indoors together. It can be done remotely, via zoom etc. 'Making the most of all in one place opportunities' was indeed explicitly against the guidelines for campaigning during Covid. In person meetings were to be minimized.
I believe the whistleblowers only went as far as saying some people didn’t do much work, treated it more as a social, and this has in turn been disputed. Can the police actually use that to prove guilt on anyone? Trusting so much on testimony of a whistleblower has caused police so much grief in other cases hasn’t it, they are bound to be cautious, or even have a different take direct from whistleblower witnesses than we have via the media?
Well, we will see what they have gathered I guess but essentially if there's enough 'doubt' they can fudge it, say it looks like there may have been a breach, that they aren't issuing retrospective fines but have spoken to all concerned to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities 'should such a situation arise in future'. Or 'spoken to everyone about the importance of following the law in its entirety' And Starmer is left with a tricky choice. Also note there is no need to 'prove guilt' for a FPN, they just need to be reasonably sure it would hold up if taken to court in dispute.
Edit - and from a public perspective, it remains the case that we all had to jump through stupid hoops, so there is simply no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps, but it would have been convenient for a lot of us to do a lot of things we couldn't
“ Starmer is left with a tricky choice.”. Tricky choice? I think he would declare himself exonerated if the outcome was as you described.
With Partygate, where there was no excuse to be socialising indoors with a beer, but they paid taxpayers money to a photographer to show them socialising indoors with a beer, open and shut case not likely to go to court. Anyone at beergate though, as it’s not so obvious to show wrongdoing, might feel aggrieved enough to take it to court, police will have to be very “reasonably sure” they wouldn’t lose in court.
“no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps”. Absolutely right. But it’s not what they did though, they worked, grabbed takeaway whilst working. 100% smack bang in middle of rules at the time.
He declares himself a lot of things. Others will differ. And it will taint him in the eyes of many.
They did not 'grab a takeaway', the meal was pre-planned, it does not state on the plan that it is a working meal, some have said no work took place, others differ. Time will tell, but it's certainly impossible to conclude either it was legal or not at this stage as we weren't there, we can only believe what we believe to be the case.
Exactly. We’ll trust the police. 🙂
You know the meal wasn’t in the same room as the working?
I believe it was probably unnecessary to eat and drink booze together indoors and thus against the rules as I understand them. I don't believe what they did in the round was unreasonable, but it wouldn't have been unreasonable for me to host a wake for immediate family after my mother's funeral. It would have been illegal, though, so I didn't.
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
It had to be reasonably necessary for work. They could, for example, have given everyone an hour to go to a takeout or eat alone outdoors at a pub etc. Inconvenient, but that's what the rest of us were stuck with. Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there. 'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse. Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
Still doesn’t answer the question though, what exactly are you proving they did wrong, even for just an advisory note?
They need to show the meal and being 'gathered together we 15' was reasonably necessary for work purposes, or rather the police merely need to say they do not believe it was and a breach of the guidelines and law, technical or otherwise, has occurred
Edit - 15 people were not allowed to eat together indoors except where reasonably necessary for work. 15 people did, the onus is on them to show it was reasonably necessary
Shouldn’t be too difficult that? Top politicians in election campaign wouldn’t expect to be standard hours, and to make the most of all in one place opportunities for wash up and planning. Especially as they passed police phone and server logs to prove they were working, can’t really leave police with much of a doubt?
Well, given witnesses present have said no work was done and some of them were pissed there's clearly some doubt from some that it was necessary, dilligent work. And 'wash up and planning' do not require you to breach the rules on numbers indoors together. It can be done remotely, via zoom etc. 'Making the most of all in one place opportunities' was indeed explicitly against the guidelines for campaigning during Covid. In person meetings were to be minimized.
I believe the whistleblowers only went as far as saying some people didn’t do much work, treated it more as a social, and this has in turn been disputed. Can the police actually use that to prove guilt on anyone? Trusting so much on testimony of a whistleblower has caused police so much grief in other cases hasn’t it, they are bound to be cautious, or even have a different take direct from whistleblower witnesses than we have via the media?
Well, we will see what they have gathered I guess but essentially if there's enough 'doubt' they can fudge it, say it looks like there may have been a breach, that they aren't issuing retrospective fines but have spoken to all concerned to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities 'should such a situation arise in future'. Or 'spoken to everyone about the importance of following the law in its entirety' And Starmer is left with a tricky choice. Also note there is no need to 'prove guilt' for a FPN, they just need to be reasonably sure it would hold up if taken to court in dispute.
Edit - and from a public perspective, it remains the case that we all had to jump through stupid hoops, so there is simply no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps, but it would have been convenient for a lot of us to do a lot of things we couldn't
“ Starmer is left with a tricky choice.”. Tricky choice? I think he would declare himself exonerated if the outcome was as you described.
With Partygate, where there was no excuse to be socialising indoors with a beer, but they paid taxpayers money to a photographer to show them socialising indoors with a beer, open and shut case not likely to go to court. Anyone at beergate though, as it’s not so obvious to show wrongdoing, might feel aggrieved enough to take it to court, police will have to be very “reasonably sure” they wouldn’t lose in court.
“no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps”. Absolutely right. But it’s not what they did though, they worked, grabbed takeaway whilst working. 100% smack bang in middle of rules at the time.
He declares himself a lot of things. Others will differ. And it will taint him in the eyes of many.
They did not 'grab a takeaway', the meal was pre-planned, it does not state on the plan that it is a working meal, some have said no work took place, others differ. Time will tell, but it's certainly impossible to conclude either it was legal or not at this stage as we weren't there, we can only believe what we believe to be the case.
The video of him stood up drinking beer with people wondering around with no covid precautions being followed does not look good and such "work events" were not happening at that time.
I would be very surprised if Durham Police approve the event and make a statement to that effect. i think the minimum will be "it should not have happened"
At least we are arguing beergate again. I had missed it 😆
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
Wow! You posted all that just to get a pathetic dig in? I hope you're not WFH as well...
Dearie dearie me. So bitter. What happened to England’s infamous self-confidence? You’re all so insecure.
(And no, I only occasionally WFH, although I did an awful lot during Covid.)
"When [Truss] puts her head on the pillow she thinks 'I voted Remain' so she believes she has to be true Brexit for the Brexiters. She's always talking to the ERG," a senior Tory told @adampayne26
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
That's because we already have a security arrangement with Sweden independent of (if not entirely orthogonal to) NATO.
Nope. The UK is just one among a very long list of states who have made the same independent interim security arrangements with Sweden. And the UK arrangement is not even deemed significant enough for the foreign minister to even mention it. She obviously doesn’t read PB.
Your prejudice against UK and your comments will be warmly welcomed in the Kremlin and by Putin, not so much by Sweden and Finland
He has been sent there as a missionary by the SNP in the hope he can convert them to hatred of the English. Putin endorses his actions.
Anyone listening to the governor of the Bank of England being questioned by the Treasury Select Committee would not be comforted by his comments, as the combination of the Ukraine war with it's effect on the supply of wheat to the world, to the likelyhood of oil and gas price hikes continuing for an inderminnate period as reliance on Russia as a supplier is sidelined, and the looming disaster of the effects of covid and China's zero covid policy, leaves them virtually powerless to mitigate the economic damage in a meaningful way
I think I'm right in saying UK inflation was at 5% before the Ukraine crisis started, partly as a result of Bailey cranking up the money printing machine to bankroll Johnson and Sunak.
You would think the tory MPs would be grateful. Now they want to put Bailey in the dock. Imagine if Bailey had refused to keep printing at some point.
Nonsense. The government are not to blame for inflation, the bottom line is the Bank of England is INDEPENDENT.
An INDEPENDENT institution messing up its main job controlling inflation, and hypocrites trying to blame government for this.
So, you’re a “Lib Dem” are you?
You fail the duck test.
Oh dear you are having a terrible afternoon bulldozey, wrong with every post. Maybe you should log off log back in again to see if your posts can be any better. What I posted is 100% accurate - Bank of England independent, it’s main responsibility control inflation - unless you want to state Boris can move interest rates up an down?
In what persons mind are Lib Dems ever left wing? libdems is all right of centre stuff, individual choice individual freedom, and liberalism, in every way, life, love and money. Like all my posts 🙂
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
That's because we already have a security arrangement with Sweden independent of (if not entirely orthogonal to) NATO.
Nope. The UK is just one among a very long list of states who have made the same independent interim security arrangements with Sweden. And the UK arrangement is not even deemed significant enough for the foreign minister to even mention it. She obviously doesn’t read PB.
Oh dear me, the mill's gannin' fast The puir wee shifters canna get a rest Shiftin' bobbins coorse and fine They fairly mak' ye work for your ten and nine
Oh dear me, I wish the day was done Rinnin' up and doon the Pass it is nae fun Shiftin', piecin', spinnin' warp weft and twine Tae feed and clad my bairnie affen ten and nine
Oh dear me, the warld is ill divided Them that works the hardest are the least provided I maun bide contented, dark days or fine For there's nae much pleasure livin' affen ten and nine
You cannae weave jute from home, that's for sure. Or, sadly, in Dundee anymore.
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
Commiserations. Looks like Ireland for you.
Huh? Very cryptic. I’d ask you for clarification, but life is too short.
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
There are no European Countries left who would want to be in NATO - Serbia definitely wouldn't, Bosnia probably not. Austria is neutral by treaty, Switzerland relies on he fact that you'd have to fight all the way though NATO to get to them....
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
Wow! You posted all that just to get a pathetic dig in? I hope you're not WFH as well...
Dearie dearie me. So bitter. What happened to England’s infamous self-confidence? You’re all so insecure.
(And no, I only occasionally WFH, although I did an awful lot during Covid.)
I think you suggesting someone else's insecurity is one of the best bits of psychological projection I have seen since Malcolm last called someone "thick".
Big day in Sweden, and a lot of politicians here are making memorable statements. The atmosphere is grave.
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
Highly predictable comment from the most anti UK poster on this site
Many would reject this attitude not least with the current actions of Germany and France enabling Putin's war machine to continue
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
It had to be reasonably necessary for work. They could, for example, have given everyone an hour to go to a takeout or eat alone outdoors at a pub etc. Inconvenient, but that's what the rest of us were stuck with. Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there. 'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse. Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
Still doesn’t answer the question though, what exactly are you proving they did wrong, even for just an advisory note?
They need to show the meal and being 'gathered together we 15' was reasonably necessary for work purposes, or rather the police merely need to say they do not believe it was and a breach of the guidelines and law, technical or otherwise, has occurred
Edit - 15 people were not allowed to eat together indoors except where reasonably necessary for work. 15 people did, the onus is on them to show it was reasonably necessary
Shouldn’t be too difficult that? Top politicians in election campaign wouldn’t expect to be standard hours, and to make the most of all in one place opportunities for wash up and planning. Especially as they passed police phone and server logs to prove they were working, can’t really leave police with much of a doubt?
Well, given witnesses present have said no work was done and some of them were pissed there's clearly some doubt from some that it was necessary, dilligent work. And 'wash up and planning' do not require you to breach the rules on numbers indoors together. It can be done remotely, via zoom etc. 'Making the most of all in one place opportunities' was indeed explicitly against the guidelines for campaigning during Covid. In person meetings were to be minimized.
I believe the whistleblowers only went as far as saying some people didn’t do much work, treated it more as a social, and this has in turn been disputed. Can the police actually use that to prove guilt on anyone? Trusting so much on testimony of a whistleblower has caused police so much grief in other cases hasn’t it, they are bound to be cautious, or even have a different take direct from whistleblower witnesses than we have via the media?
Well, we will see what they have gathered I guess but essentially if there's enough 'doubt' they can fudge it, say it looks like there may have been a breach, that they aren't issuing retrospective fines but have spoken to all concerned to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities 'should such a situation arise in future'. Or 'spoken to everyone about the importance of following the law in its entirety' And Starmer is left with a tricky choice. Also note there is no need to 'prove guilt' for a FPN, they just need to be reasonably sure it would hold up if taken to court in dispute.
Edit - and from a public perspective, it remains the case that we all had to jump through stupid hoops, so there is simply no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps, but it would have been convenient for a lot of us to do a lot of things we couldn't
“ Starmer is left with a tricky choice.”. Tricky choice? I think he would declare himself exonerated if the outcome was as you described.
With Partygate, where there was no excuse to be socialising indoors with a beer, but they paid taxpayers money to a photographer to show them socialising indoors with a beer, open and shut case not likely to go to court. Anyone at beergate though, as it’s not so obvious to show wrongdoing, might feel aggrieved enough to take it to court, police will have to be very “reasonably sure” they wouldn’t lose in court.
“no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps”. Absolutely right. But it’s not what they did though, they worked, grabbed takeaway whilst working. 100% smack bang in middle of rules at the time.
He declares himself a lot of things. Others will differ. And it will taint him in the eyes of many.
They did not 'grab a takeaway', the meal was pre-planned, it does not state on the plan that it is a working meal, some have said no work took place, others differ. Time will tell, but it's certainly impossible to conclude either it was legal or not at this stage as we weren't there, we can only believe what we believe to be the case.
The video of him stood up drinking beer with people wondering around with no covid precautions being followed does not look good and such "work events" were not happening at that time.
I would be very surprised if Durham Police approve the event and make a statement to that effect. i think the minimum will be "it should not have happened"
At least we are arguing beergate again. I had missed it 😆
I am surprised as SKS's confidence that the event was OK and in line with the Covid rules at that time.
Comments
She says “in the mind of Boris Johnson government here in the north” involves placating dup on protocol. “Our absolute dismay” that this is where we are at.
Huff are on to them.
Edit - 15 people were not allowed to eat together indoors except where reasonably necessary for work. 15 people did, the onus is on them to show it was reasonably necessary
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61465605
But the dogs bodies down the chain, no extra days off for you.
I was never completely convinced by the theory.
https://mobile.twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1526200298343129090
On April 20, Russian MP from the Liberal-Democratic Party Sergey Leonov suggested forcing the Ukrainian POWs to donate their blood.
His exact framing is very interesting:
"There is an offer for the Ukrainian POWs to become the compulsory (в обязательном порядке) blood donors"
The FT article Warner’s commenting on, by Andrew Posen, is decidedly more punchy in tone than Warner’s tweet. I referenced a blog post pointing out the economic damage of Brexit a couple of weeks ago that was in turn referencing Posen, and got a scolding from Leon for my lack of understanding of economics.
Well, I happily concede I don’t understand economics. But I also don’t distrust experts. If the FT are happy to publish Posen and a senior member of staff from the DT agrees with the argument, that’s good enough for me.
https://twitter.com/JeremyWarnerUK/status/1526134365759184897?cxt=HHwWgoC96dXH9a0qAAAA
'Best policy on the NI Protocol is not to pass a law to suspend it, which apart from threatening relations with the US is just political signalling of little immediate practical significance, but indefinite extension of grace periods, putting the ball firmly in the EU's court.'
https://talksport.com/football/fa-cup/1087521/manchester-city-apology-liverpool-hillsborough-fa-cup/amp/
Manchester City have issued an apology on behalf of the supporters who booed during the tribute to those affected by the Hillsborough disaster.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11669/12614482/jurgen-klopp-liverpool-manager-does-not-expect-man-city-to-drop-points-against-aston-villa
Klopp said: "Of course I have thoughts, but in these situations, I think the question is why does it happen?
"I maybe haven't been here long enough to understand the reasons for it. The majority of our supporters are wonderful people - really smart, go through lows and highs, suffer together.
"They wouldn't do it without reason, but it was not something I enjoyed."
Dear Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, congratulations on your reelection today.
The EU faces unprecedented challenges.
I look forward to working together to ensure we can collectively address them successfully.
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1526193863890706432
@eucopresident
In these testing times, the EU’s unity and sovereignty are our main strengths.
Congratulations on your re-election dear Viktor Orban and looking forward to our continued cooperation at the European Council.
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1526198093124886528
Law of the land requires that, indeed significantly more.
https://www.gov.uk/holiday-entitlement-rights
That is the entitlement - not the actual leave taken which can be shuffled between years eg for hols - but plainly the 3 week limit is not sustainable in the long term.
Mother, a self-employed retail pharmacist while I was small, ran her own pharmacy in one of those shops, once common, where the proprietor lived behind and over. Her sister was full-time caring (father was away; wartime). Mother could, and did pop into the living area sometimes.
Later on I ran a pharmacy but lived elsewhere, so arrived 8.45 or so, left at 6.15 or so. Similar when I worked in a hospital..... go to work, stay until finishing time, go home.
However I've also run a consultancy from home, where I had to go to site, come home and write up.
That was probably the best, quality of life-wise.
Edit: and if HMG says it is a right, that sounds like an entitlement to me.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/02/goldman-sachs-raises-pay-for-junior-bankers-after-100-hour-week-complaints
What i fear willl happen is that monitoring techniques will be introduced to ensure you are working from home then everyone will find themselves tapping away for 8 hours a day , having no social interaction or even the exercise of a commute. What a miserable existence that will be
The government says " you have the right to 28 days holiday" but doesn't set a minimum.
GS is saying "you must take at least 15 days including five consecutive" but (for senior staff) isn't setting a maximum.
Councils I deal with are still doing it, their huge offices remian empty and it is a nightmare as their systems are no longer followed and trying to get payment or an answer from them takes 10 times as long as before.
"Most workers who work a 5-day week must receive at least 28 days’ paid annual leave a year. This is the equivalent of 5.6 weeks of holiday."
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
And Starmer is left with a tricky choice.
Also note there is no need to 'prove guilt' for a FPN, they just need to be reasonably sure it would hold up if taken to court in dispute.
Edit - and from a public perspective, it remains the case that we all had to jump through stupid hoops, so there is simply no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps, but it would have been convenient for a lot of us to do a lot of things we couldn't
“British judges have blocked extradition on the grounds the suspects would not receive a fair trial in Rwanda.”
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864
Putin today:
NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Our foreign minister Ann Linde just said on the SR P1 NATO special (think BBC R4 abandons whole schedule and dedicates channel to the NATO application):
- “… är det en ökad sårbarhet för Sverige. Det är helt klart.
… Därför så har vi också varit noga med och se till och fått säkerhetsförsäkringar från de stora länderna som USA, Frankrike, Tyskland, de nordiska länderna och så vidare, för att öka säkerheten.”
- ”… it is an increased vulnerability for Sweden. That's quite clear.
… Therefore, we have also been careful to ensure and receive security promises from the major countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the Nordic countries and so on, to increase security.”
Hmm… sorry Boris, when it comes to selling NATO to the Swedish people, there is one state nobody is boasting about. The “UK” is just an “etc”.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
However, nothing he is saying there is incorrect but with interest rates set at current levels you would be insane not to maximise your borrowing...
Disaster in North Korea according to Dr John Campbell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcWxX68y19E
Serbia is an ally of Russia
Edit: what's so odd is that when one takes BHs into account there's not that much difference with the law, so they are obviously breaching that for not much margin.
Must be all these strange Swedes he seems to knows. All the ones I've been in contact with seem to be pretty cool about the UK's approach to Ukraine and support for Swedish accession to NATO.
I think I'm right in saying UK inflation was at 5% before the Ukraine crisis started, partly as a result of Bailey cranking up the money printing machine to bankroll Johnson and Sunak.
You would think the tory MPs would be grateful. Now they want to put Bailey in the dock. Imagine if Bailey had refused to keep printing at some point.
Many would reject this attitude not least with the current actions of Germany and France enabling Putin's war machine to continue
https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/uk-signs-security-deal-with-sweden-and-finland-marking-steadfast-support-122051100990_1.html
With Partygate, where there was no excuse to be socialising indoors with a beer, but they paid taxpayers money to a photographer to show them socialising indoors with a beer, open and shut case not likely to go to court. Anyone at beergate though, as it’s not so obvious to show wrongdoing, might feel aggrieved enough to take it to court, police will have to be very “reasonably sure” they wouldn’t lose in court.
“no valid reason from a fairness perspective for SKS to have sat down and had booze and supper with 14 other people indoors. It was simply unnecessary. Convenient, perhaps”. Absolutely right. But it’s not what they did though, they worked, grabbed takeaway whilst working. 100% smack bang in middle of rules at the time.
An INDEPENDENT institution messing up its main job controlling inflation, and hypocrites trying to blame government for this.
You fail the duck test.
They did not 'grab a takeaway', the meal was pre-planned, it does not state on the plan that it is a working meal, some have said no work took place, others differ. Time will tell, but it's certainly impossible to conclude either it was legal or not at this stage as we weren't there, we can only believe what we believe to be the case.
hmmn....
You know the meal wasn’t in the same room as the working?
https://www.nato.int/nato-on-the-map
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/johnson-security-assurances-sweden-and-finland-not-just-symbolic
"UK goes further than any other Nato country in Sweden and Finland pledge"
I should leave off @StuartDickson while you're still only a thousand miles behind.
I would be very surprised if Durham Police approve the event and make a statement to that effect. i think the minimum will be "it should not have happened"
In what persons mind are Lib Dems ever left wing? libdems is all right of centre stuff, individual choice individual freedom, and liberalism, in every way, life, love and money. Like all my posts 🙂
I don't believe what they did in the round was unreasonable, but it wouldn't have been unreasonable for me to host a wake for immediate family after my mother's funeral. It would have been illegal, though, so I didn't.
(And no, I only occasionally WFH, although I did an awful lot during Covid.)
"When [Truss] puts her head on the pillow she thinks 'I voted Remain' so she believes she has to be true Brexit for the Brexiters. She's always talking to the ERG," a senior Tory told @adampayne26
Oh dear me, the mill's gannin' fast
The puir wee shifters canna get a rest
Shiftin' bobbins coorse and fine
They fairly mak' ye work for your ten and nine
Oh dear me, I wish the day was done
Rinnin' up and doon the Pass it is nae fun
Shiftin', piecin', spinnin' warp weft and twine
Tae feed and clad my bairnie affen ten and nine
Oh dear me, the warld is ill divided
Them that works the hardest are the least provided
I maun bide contented, dark days or fine
For there's nae much pleasure livin' affen ten and nine
You cannae weave jute from home, that's for sure. Or, sadly, in Dundee anymore.
“He was the most anti UK poster on an obscure blog.”
Hmmm… needs some work. But cheers for the inspiration.