Has Johnson got it right clamping down on home working? – politicalbetting.com

Applicant said:

MoonRabbit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

wooliedyed said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

Government transparency latest. Cabinet Office refuses to reveal cost of taxpayer of "custom built" wardrobe in former Johnson aide's office.

Top scoop by @SophiaSleigh

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cabinet-office-refuses-to-reveal-price-of-custom-built-wardrobe-for-ex-johnson-aide_uk_624c3061e4b068157f7c4540

“Scoop” 😂😂😂😂

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".

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

Unpopular said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:

This appears to be a major change. Now saying he’ll resign if the police say he breached rules, not just if he’s issued an FPN. https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1526172579958071296

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?

Scott_xP said:

Breaking: Sinn Fein’s @MaryLouMcDonald says they’ve had a “tough” meeting with the pm and clear that the British govt priority is not getting Stormont up and running. https://twitter.com/AnushkaAsthana/status/1526200658948497408/photo/1

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.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Goldman Sachs to offer senior staff unlimited holiday
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61465605

But the dogs bodies down the chain, no extra days off for you.

Nigelb said:

The Russian 'Lib Dems' ...

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"

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

Unpopular said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:

This appears to be a major change. Now saying he’ll resign if the police say he breached rules, not just if he’s issued an FPN. https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1526172579958071296

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

MarqueeMark said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Dura_Ace said:

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....

FrancisUrquhart said:

Goldman Sachs to offer senior staff unlimited holiday
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61465605

But the dogs bodies down the chain, no extra days off for you.

northern_monkey said:

Carnyx said:

northern_monkey said:

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 ...

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.'

‘Taking back control.’

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Goldman Sachs to offer senior staff unlimited holiday
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61465605

But the dogs bodies down the chain, no extra days off for you.

Though they will be required to take at least 3 weeks annual leave

carnforth said:

northern_monkey said:

Carnyx said:

northern_monkey said:

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 ...

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.'

‘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.

Applicant said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Goldman Sachs to offer senior staff unlimited holiday
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61465605

But the dogs bodies down the chain, no extra days off for you.

Though they will be required to take at least 3 weeks annual leave

Big deal.

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.

That's an entitlement rather than a requirement, though.

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Goldman Sachs to offer senior staff unlimited holiday
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61465605

But the dogs bodies down the chain, no extra days off for you.

Though they will be required to take at least 3 weeks annual leave

Big deal.

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.

Given even first year junior analysts at Goldmans get £79,000 a year pretty good deal still in my view

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/02/goldman-sachs-raises-pay-for-junior-bankers-after-100-hour-week-complaints

Carnyx said:

Applicant said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Goldman Sachs to offer senior staff unlimited holiday
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61465605

But the dogs bodies down the chain, no extra days off for you.

Though they will be required to take at least 3 weeks annual leave

Big deal.

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.

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.

Applicant said:

Carnyx said:

Applicant said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Goldman Sachs to offer senior staff unlimited holiday
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61465605

But the dogs bodies down the chain, no extra days off for you.

Though they will be required to take at least 3 weeks annual leave

Big deal.

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.

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.

Applicant said:

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.

Carnyx said:

Applicant said:

Carnyx said:

Applicant said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Goldman Sachs to offer senior staff unlimited holiday
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61465605

But the dogs bodies down the chain, no extra days off for you.

Though they will be required to take at least 3 weeks annual leave

Big deal.

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.

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."

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

Unpopular said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:

This appears to be a major change. Now saying he’ll resign if the police say he breached rules, not just if he’s issued an FPN. https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1526172579958071296

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?

BartholomewRoberts said:

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.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

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.

StuartDickson said:

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”.

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

Unpopular said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:

This appears to be a major change. Now saying he’ll resign if the police say he breached rules, not just if he’s issued an FPN. https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1526172579958071296

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

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

Unpopular said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:

This appears to be a major change. Now saying he’ll resign if the police say he breached rules, not just if he’s issued an FPN. https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1526172579958071296

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.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

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.

StuartDickson said:

Applicant said:

StuartDickson said:

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.

StuartDickson said:

Applicant said:

StuartDickson said:

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.

Leon said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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

StuartDickson said:

MoonRabbit said:

MISTY said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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.

NerysHughes said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

Unpopular said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:

This appears to be a major change. Now saying he’ll resign if the police say he breached rules, not just if he’s issued an FPN. https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1526172579958071296

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"

MoonRabbit said:

StuartDickson said:

MoonRabbit said:

MISTY said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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 🙂

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

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....

https://www.nato.int/nato-on-the-map

StuartDickson said:

turbotubbs said:

StuartDickson said:

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.)

StuartDickson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

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

https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/uk-signs-security-deal-with-sweden-and-finland-marking-steadfast-support-122051100990_1.html

Stooey’s draft epitaph:

“He was the most anti UK poster on an obscure blog.”

Hmmm… needs some work. But cheers for the inspiration.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Leon said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

Andy_JS said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Leon said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

This is the whole problem with WFT. It's about people isolating themselves in their own little perfect world where they don't have to ever meet anyone they might not like.