I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
Completely snowed in now. Cannot open front door. Managed to open back door and collect wood for fire. It is quite beautiful outside. There is a magical stillness in a snow covered landscape.
Fortunately the main road nearby seems to have been cleared. So at least we can walk to the town, even it will take an hour or so.
1. Scotland does not have the same rebuttable presumption that computer evidence is reliable unless the defendant proves otherwise. 2. Scottish prosecutors had doubts about Horizon evidence and did not therefore prosecute. 3. The Post Office in Scotland could not run its own prosecutions so there was some independent review - and attempt to comply with the rules - of the type so dismally lacking in England & Wales.
Bluntly the PO was not able to subvert the Scottish criminal justice system in the way that it did elsewhere. Though the evidence in recent days suggests that the PO did try to by trying to bully Scottish prosecutors.
It makes Ministers' refusal to look again at the computer evidence presumption even more unconscionable than it is.
Many thanks - I'd missed it. I'd been wondering what the situation was up here. Were there really no prosecutions in Scotland?
Presumably the PF and Crown Office might have had their suspicions - but without looking into it in detail they couldn't be sure. And it would be unfair to expect them to spend the time to do so (which they couldn't, without a case, anyway, which meant a formal complaint from the PO) or to go public - unless, that was, there was an actual case in Scotland and expert witnesses could go to town on the prosecution evidence and the whole laundry-basket could be emptied out in court.
I do wonder however how many Scottish subPMs had to pay the losses the system reportedly magicked out of thin air, and lost their livelihoods on the quiet, even if they did not go to court.
I'm now beginning to wonder just why at least one supermarket I know closed its subPO.
I don't know the answer to your first question. The key point is that Scots law required corroboration and there was no such evidence.
But you make an important point which is often overlooked: many SPMs were pursued for the money but not prosecuted. So the injustice goes wider than the prosecutions - all the debt recovery proceedings are also fundamentally flawed. And all the monies SPMs paid out of their own pockets to resolve discrepancies were obtained under false pretences.
Basically nothing the PO legal department did in relation to the SPM - whether civil or criminal - from 2000 onwards - can be relied on.
I wouldn't rely on anything they say or do now, frankly, given the ongoing disclosure failings. The entire legal and investigative function at the PO is discredited.
One of the PO investigation managers who recently gave evidence is now an internal investigator at Sellafield, which is a tad worrying. She boasts about her time at the PO on her LinkedIn page which shows an alarming lack of awareness.
The position in Scotland is not quite as different as is being portrayed. The relevant provision is paragraph 4 of schedule 8 of the Criminal Procedure (S) Act 1995 which provides:
"Unless the court otherwise directs, a document may in any criminal proceedings be taken to be a document kept by a business or undertaking or by or on behalf of the holder of a paid or unpaid office if it is certified as such by a docquet in the prescribed form and purporting to be authenticated, in such manner as may be prescribed— (a) by a person authorised to authenticate such a docquet on behalf of the business or undertaking by which; or (b) by, or by a person authorised to authenticate such a docquet on behalf of, the office-holder by whom, the document was kept."
This is know as the business records exception in relation to hearsay. If the holder of the records confirms that they are the records of the business with the appropriate certificate then those records are deemed to be accurate and true records unless the contrary is shown. So if the likes of the hapless Mr Singh had certified the Horizon records for a prosecution in Scotland that would have created a similar position to that in England and Wales.
The prosecution, however, would still be in the hands of the COPFS and not in the hands of the PO itself so it would have been independently assessed.
The requirement for corroboration of the records would normally be met by someone speaking to the records which showed the alleged deficiency. The court would normally be looking for someone who had carried out an investigation or audit which vouched the shortfall.
I am not aware of prosecutions in Scotland (as opposed to civil claims) but it seems very unlikely that there were not any. If Procurators fiscal were unwilling to proceed on the basis of the Horizon evidence as early as 2012 then I think that their good sense and judgment is to be commended.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Ah but you forget. "Righties" can't be guilty of hypocrisy because they never pretend to care about anything. It's one of the perks of being one.
Not sure about that. Talking about family values while splitting up families via the immigration system. Attacking welfare while shovelling money to pensioners. Talking about low taxes while always being the ones putting up VAT. Talking about cancel culture while banning critics of the government from talking to civil servants or speaking at government events. Talking about cutting red tape while putting up barriers to trade with Europe. Talking about freedom while reducing rights to protest or take industrial action...
Starmer chasing the votes of people who will never vote for Labour . At the same time pissing off many Labour voters . The biggest danger to Labour at the moment is Starmer !
And talking about Brexit possibilities . More stupid comments which will annoy the vast majority of Labour voters who think Brexit is a crusty white turd !
On this particular topic I have to disagree. Starmer has little to gain and much to lose by allowing the Tories to paint the next GE as another Brexit vote. In the background we can clearly see the direction of travel - we are slowly and surely returning to the EU orbit. Labour will feel more confident advocating for closer ties when they are in government, as a first term objective they should simply be mending relationships and setting the tone for more productive dealings.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
Yeah because sucking up to Mrs Thatcher really boosted Gordon Brown. Not. FFS stop listening to Peter bloody Mandelson. He was wrong then; he is wrong now.
Going on about Thatcher for either good or bad just typifies how backward looking our country can be. Revisiting the history of 40 years ago when the economics and challenges of today are very different is just pointless.
We have grey politicians right now. Because we wanted them after a period of lunatics.
Trying to associate oneself with a non-grey, charismatic leader is a classic grey man ploy.
Associating SKS with Mrs Thatcher, whom half the country hated even as the other half loved her, is a special kind of Mandelsonian stupidity, especially when SKS needs the votes of the first group. And do you know where Mrs Thatcher is most hated, and where Labour most needs votes to defeat the Scottish National Party?
You are missing the politics of it. She was voted into power several times and enacted policies she said she was going to enact. "Hated" is language from the JCR. Most people will acknowledge a principled politician and a woman leader at a time when there weren't many around.
Labour needs votes, not acknowledgement. It is you, Starmer and Mandelson who have the politics wrong. And take your JCR sneer and shove it up your google search for Thatcher Loved and Hated or some such.
So let's see whether this move is astute and to do this we can look at the vote share. If Lab wins the next GE I will have been proved right and you wrong (as usual). If they lose then fair enough you were right and I, untypically, was the wrong tactic.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Agreed. One of the (many) ludicrous claims during the pandemic was that being there was unnecessary, everything could be done by computers. Well, as we now all know, computers are shit and being there does matter.
Anyone remember Zoom ‘parties’? Even the thought makes me shudder.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Agreed. One of the (many) ludicrous claims during the pandemic was that being there was unnecessary, everything could be done by computers. Well, as we now all know, computers are shit and being there does matter.
Anyone remember Zoom ‘parties’? Even the thought makes me shudder.
The Zoom lockdown events have put me off quizzes for life.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
He suddenly looks like he’s wearing a weird multicoloured toupee
Had the weird experience of thinking about you yesterday at a birthday lunch. I didn’t know your favourite knife-makers made knives for dining purposes but they were every bit as sharp as their fold up fun knives.
Lovely knives
Tho technically my favourite knives are these
Wolf and Dingo. Hand forged on Bodmin Moor. I have three. Superb
Only problem is they are 25 times the price of Opinel
I never had you down as a rustle something up oh where's the asafoetida kind of guy.
I have a mild knife obsession
Coincidentally I am reading a book about forensic psychiatry and “an obsession with knives” is one of the top 20 primary indicators of psychopathy
I also tick several other boxes. Odd sensation
Not an obsession, but I too love pocket knives and similar. I think it stems from a childhood spent camping.
I have a beautiful Laguiole corkscrew that I simply love to handle too.
My most evil knife is my sailors knife, designed for cutting ropes in an emergency, which I keep on a cord in my buoyancy aid.
Must be a bit alarming for your patients.
I'm something of a fan.
Opinel knives are beautifully sharpenable. I have one as my backup "take to restaurants in case their steak knives are blunt" pocket knife.
More worringly for monoglot British they have one called a "Couteau d'Office", which sounds like something needed by Miss Moneypenny for controlling 007 and to obtain sweetbread-slices for the lunchtime sandwiches.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
The whole comment misunderstands the Copp process, it's not a "lefty" project, it's a meeting organised by the entire global community to address the threat posed by climate change. The meeting in Dubai is attended by people of all political persuasion and none, including wealthy business people who may want to fly in by private jet. Of course one can point out the inherent absurdity of flying by private jet to a climate conference, but it's not a "lefty" hypocrisy. I guess there are a few on the right who misunderstand the scientific consensus on this issue - or are sufficiently nihilistic to pretend they do - but that doesn't make addressing climate change a "lefty" project, it is a mainstream goal that most of humanity has signed up to in the name of self-preservation.
The various carbon projections needed to get to a sub 2 C rise are about as realistic as Rishi's plan to stop the err boats.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Agreed. One of the (many) ludicrous claims during the pandemic was that being there was unnecessary, everything could be done by computers. Well, as we now all know, computers are shit and being there does matter.
Anyone remember Zoom ‘parties’? Even the thought makes me shudder.
One of the most cringy things, which I didn’t partake in but largely because I happened not to be an active member of a choir at the time, was zoom choirs. Members would record their part then someone would mix them all together to make a harmony.
Nice idea but the trouble was twofold: they tended to choose schmaltzy pop-classic arrangements rather than good hard core choral music, and everyone felt the need to look very earnest and caring on the video.
Talking of which, remember that virtual recording of Imagine, by some B listers?
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
How do you do a photo opportunity with admiring journalists on the plane when you are attending a Zoom conference?
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
Yeah because sucking up to Mrs Thatcher really boosted Gordon Brown. Not. FFS stop listening to Peter bloody Mandelson. He was wrong then; he is wrong now.
Going on about Thatcher for either good or bad just typifies how backward looking our country can be. Revisiting the history of 40 years ago when the economics and challenges of today are very different is just pointless.
We have grey politicians right now. Because we wanted them after a period of lunatics.
Trying to associate oneself with a non-grey, charismatic leader is a classic grey man ploy.
Associating SKS with Mrs Thatcher, whom half the country hated even as the other half loved her, is a special kind of Mandelsonian stupidity, especially when SKS needs the votes of the first group. And do you know where Mrs Thatcher is most hated, and where Labour most needs votes to defeat the Scottish National Party?
You are missing the politics of it. She was voted into power several times and enacted policies she said she was going to enact. "Hated" is language from the JCR. Most people will acknowledge a principled politician and a woman leader at a time when there weren't many around.
Labour needs votes, not acknowledgement. It is you, Starmer and Mandelson who have the politics wrong. And take your JCR sneer and shove it up your google search for Thatcher Loved and Hated or some such.
So let's see whether this move is astute and to do this we can look at the vote share. If Lab wins the next GE I will have been proved right and you wrong (as usual). If they lose then fair enough you were right and I, untypically, was the wrong tactic.
You do realise Labour has a squillion point lead in the polls?
On Trump, I see that his efforts to pretend that Presidential Immunity to prosecution extends to his personal activities, including the unlawful ones, has been shot down in flames again.
Trump's claim was that civil lawsuits for damages due to actions relating to the Jan 6 insurrection should be struck out because he was acting in his official capacity as President.
This is in the lawsuit by various Members of Congress and staff, and Police Officers, for damages, and the ruling is in the DC Federal Appeals Court.
If I understand the range of animals in the US Legal Bodies Zoo correctly, the next appeal us to the US Supreme Court, as it is a Federal Case.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
Yeah because sucking up to Mrs Thatcher really boosted Gordon Brown. Not. FFS stop listening to Peter bloody Mandelson. He was wrong then; he is wrong now.
Going on about Thatcher for either good or bad just typifies how backward looking our country can be. Revisiting the history of 40 years ago when the economics and challenges of today are very different is just pointless.
We have grey politicians right now. Because we wanted them after a period of lunatics.
Trying to associate oneself with a non-grey, charismatic leader is a classic grey man ploy.
Associating SKS with Mrs Thatcher, whom half the country hated even as the other half loved her, is a special kind of Mandelsonian stupidity, especially when SKS needs the votes of the first group. And do you know where Mrs Thatcher is most hated, and where Labour most needs votes to defeat the Scottish National Party?
You are missing the politics of it. She was voted into power several times and enacted policies she said she was going to enact. "Hated" is language from the JCR. Most people will acknowledge a principled politician and a woman leader at a time when there weren't many around.
Labour needs votes, not acknowledgement. It is you, Starmer and Mandelson who have the politics wrong. And take your JCR sneer and shove it up your google search for Thatcher Loved and Hated or some such.
So let's see whether this move is astute and to do this we can look at the vote share. If Lab wins the next GE I will have been proved right and you wrong (as usual). If they lose then fair enough you were right and I, untypically, was the wrong tactic.
You do realise Labour has a squillion point lead in the polls?
That’s why it was a very wise wager. Like Rishi promising to halve inflation.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Agreed. One of the (many) ludicrous claims during the pandemic was that being there was unnecessary, everything could be done by computers. Well, as we now all know, computers are shit and being there does matter.
Anyone remember Zoom ‘parties’? Even the thought makes me shudder.
The Zoom lockdown events have put me off quizzes for life.
As someone who is presently, and probably for the rest of my life, somewhat disabled, I’m very grateful for Zoom. I, like many others, discovered Zoom early in the Covid pandemic and then it saved my sanity. Now it enables me to keep in touch with all sorts of activities and keep my brain active. Groups like pb are valuable, of course, but we have to imagine what posters look like. On Zoom we can see.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Agreed. One of the (many) ludicrous claims during the pandemic was that being there was unnecessary, everything could be done by computers. Well, as we now all know, computers are shit and being there does matter.
Anyone remember Zoom ‘parties’? Even the thought makes me shudder.
The Zoom lockdown events have put me off quizzes for life.
As someone who is presently, and probably for the rest of my life, somewhat disabled, I’m very grateful for Zoom. I, like many others, discovered Zoom early in the Covid pandemic and then it saved my sanity. Now it enables me to keep in touch with all sorts of activities and keep my brain active. Groups like pb are valuable, of course, but we have to imagine what posters look like. On Zoom we can see.
Do you find yourself subconsciously imagining members look like their (human) avatars? For a long time I struggled not to picture Barty Bobs as a dandy pirate, for example.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Agreed. One of the (many) ludicrous claims during the pandemic was that being there was unnecessary, everything could be done by computers. Well, as we now all know, computers are shit and being there does matter.
Anyone remember Zoom ‘parties’? Even the thought makes me shudder.
One of the most cringy things, which I didn’t partake in but largely because I happened not to be an active member of a choir at the time, was zoom choirs. Members would record their part then someone would mix them all together to make a harmony.
Nice idea but the trouble was twofold: they tended to choose schmaltzy pop-classic arrangements rather than good hard core choral music, and everyone felt the need to look very earnest and caring on the video.
Talking of which, remember that virtual recording of Imagine, by some B listers?
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Agreed. One of the (many) ludicrous claims during the pandemic was that being there was unnecessary, everything could be done by computers. Well, as we now all know, computers are shit and being there does matter.
Anyone remember Zoom ‘parties’? Even the thought makes me shudder.
The Zoom lockdown events have put me off quizzes for life.
As someone who is presently, and probably for the rest of my life, somewhat disabled, I’m very grateful for Zoom. I, like many others, discovered Zoom early in the Covid pandemic and then it saved my sanity. Now it enables me to keep in touch with all sorts of activities and keep my brain active. Groups like pb are valuable, of course, but we have to imagine what posters look like. On Zoom we can see.
Do you find yourself subconsciously imagining members look like their (human) avatars? For a long time I struggled not to picture Barty Bobs as a dandy pirate, for example.
"The Pirate Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules!"
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
Yeah because sucking up to Mrs Thatcher really boosted Gordon Brown. Not. FFS stop listening to Peter bloody Mandelson. He was wrong then; he is wrong now.
Going on about Thatcher for either good or bad just typifies how backward looking our country can be. Revisiting the history of 40 years ago when the economics and challenges of today are very different is just pointless.
We have grey politicians right now. Because we wanted them after a period of lunatics.
Trying to associate oneself with a non-grey, charismatic leader is a classic grey man ploy.
Associating SKS with Mrs Thatcher, whom half the country hated even as the other half loved her, is a special kind of Mandelsonian stupidity, especially when SKS needs the votes of the first group. And do you know where Mrs Thatcher is most hated, and where Labour most needs votes to defeat the Scottish National Party?
You are missing the politics of it. She was voted into power several times and enacted policies she said she was going to enact. "Hated" is language from the JCR. Most people will acknowledge a principled politician and a woman leader at a time when there weren't many around.
Labour needs votes, not acknowledgement. It is you, Starmer and Mandelson who have the politics wrong. And take your JCR sneer and shove it up your google search for Thatcher Loved and Hated or some such.
So let's see whether this move is astute and to do this we can look at the vote share. If Lab wins the next GE I will have been proved right and you wrong (as usual). If they lose then fair enough you were right and I, untypically, was the wrong tactic.
You do realise Labour has a squillion point lead in the polls?
If they win the election it will be because of this. So we will see whether it proves successful.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
He suddenly looks like he’s wearing a weird multicoloured toupee
Had the weird experience of thinking about you yesterday at a birthday lunch. I didn’t know your favourite knife-makers made knives for dining purposes but they were every bit as sharp as their fold up fun knives.
Lovely knives
Tho technically my favourite knives are these
Wolf and Dingo. Hand forged on Bodmin Moor. I have three. Superb
Only problem is they are 25 times the price of Opinel
I never had you down as a rustle something up oh where's the asafoetida kind of guy.
I have a mild knife obsession
Coincidentally I am reading a book about forensic psychiatry and “an obsession with knives” is one of the top 20 primary indicators of psychopathy
I also tick several other boxes. Odd sensation
Not an obsession, but I too love pocket knives and similar. I think it stems from a childhood spent camping.
I have a beautiful Laguiole corkscrew that I simply love to handle too.
My most evil knife is my sailors knife, designed for cutting ropes in an emergency, which I keep on a cord in my buoyancy aid.
Must be a bit alarming for your patients.
I'm something of a fan.
Opinel knives are beautifully sharpenable. I have one as my backup "take to restaurants in case their steak knives are blunt" pocket knife.
More worringly for monoglot British they have one called a "Couteau d'Office", which sounds like something needed by Miss Moneypenny for controlling 007 and to obtain sweetbread-slices for the lunchtime sandwiches.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
Under normal circumstances you are right. Sunak however seems to go out of his way to antagonise those people he is momentarily pandering to. Private helicopter to and from London to Glasgow for Cop26, an almost empty airliner for a couple of hours at Cop 28. Sometimes wearing that hair shirt pays dividends. I doubt Rishi owns one.
All this presents the average Labour supporter with a dilemma. Are they:
a. Truly reformed characters who are embracing Brexit and Thatcher (not great); or b. Lying to get into power (also not great)?
My fear is it started as b but as is so often the case, they’re starting to believe their own lies.
It's an interesting point. The vaguely principled pol tends to persuade themselves that they believe their own bullshit while the amoral rsole (not thinking of anyone in particular) doesn't give a flying one.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Agreed. One of the (many) ludicrous claims during the pandemic was that being there was unnecessary, everything could be done by computers. Well, as we now all know, computers are shit and being there does matter.
Anyone remember Zoom ‘parties’? Even the thought makes me shudder.
The Zoom lockdown events have put me off quizzes for life.
As someone who is presently, and probably for the rest of my life, somewhat disabled, I’m very grateful for Zoom. I, like many others, discovered Zoom early in the Covid pandemic and then it saved my sanity. Now it enables me to keep in touch with all sorts of activities and keep my brain active. Groups like pb are valuable, of course, but we have to imagine what posters look like. On Zoom we can see.
Do you find yourself subconsciously imagining members look like their (human) avatars? For a long time I struggled not to picture Barty Bobs as a dandy pirate, for example.
TBH no. Perhaps I’m not imaginative enough! I would like to attend a Pb gathering, were there to be another, but I don’t suppose I will. I might now, of course. Incidentally, and for the avoidance of doubt, I look nothing like my avatar!
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Conference is about REDUCING carbon footprint!
And? That still requires people to meet, discuss, lobby to get the necessary agreements. Good luck doing all that via zoom.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Agreed. One of the (many) ludicrous claims during the pandemic was that being there was unnecessary, everything could be done by computers. Well, as we now all know, computers are shit and being there does matter.
Anyone remember Zoom ‘parties’? Even the thought makes me shudder.
The Zoom lockdown events have put me off quizzes for life.
As someone who is presently, and probably for the rest of my life, somewhat disabled, I’m very grateful for Zoom. I, like many others, discovered Zoom early in the Covid pandemic and then it saved my sanity. Now it enables me to keep in touch with all sorts of activities and keep my brain active. Groups like pb are valuable, of course, but we have to imagine what posters look like. On Zoom we can see.
Do you find yourself subconsciously imagining members look like their (human) avatars? For a long time I struggled not to picture Barty Bobs as a dandy pirate, for example.
TBH no. Perhaps I’m not imaginative enough! I would like to attend a Pb gathering, were there to be another, but I don’t suppose I will. I might now, of course. Incidentally, and for the avoidance of doubt, I look nothing like my avatar!
I also don’t look much like a geological map of the North downs. But it’s a little disappointing to me that you’re not a white haired version of prof Robert Winston.
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
I sometimes think Starmer is in danger of trying too hard.
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
It’s possible to praise even Johnson and Truss, in a focused way. Johnson for showing solidarity with Ukraine at a critical time; Truss for sacking Braverman.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Agreed. One of the (many) ludicrous claims during the pandemic was that being there was unnecessary, everything could be done by computers. Well, as we now all know, computers are shit and being there does matter.
Anyone remember Zoom ‘parties’? Even the thought makes me shudder.
The Zoom lockdown events have put me off quizzes for life.
As someone who is presently, and probably for the rest of my life, somewhat disabled, I’m very grateful for Zoom. I, like many others, discovered Zoom early in the Covid pandemic and then it saved my sanity. Now it enables me to keep in touch with all sorts of activities and keep my brain active. Groups like pb are valuable, of course, but we have to imagine what posters look like. On Zoom we can see.
Do you find yourself subconsciously imagining members look like their (human) avatars? For a long time I struggled not to picture Barty Bobs as a dandy pirate, for example.
TBH no. Perhaps I’m not imaginative enough! I would like to attend a Pb gathering, were there to be another, but I don’t suppose I will. I might now, of course. Incidentally, and for the avoidance of doubt, I look nothing like my avatar!
I also don’t look much like a geological map of the North downs. But it’s a little disappointing to me that you’re not a white haired version of prof Robert Winston.
Thank you for the continued headers Mike. I’m not sure Haley does have a good chance (although never say never) for the following reasons.
First, a clue is in the numbers above. Yes, she is the only one (slightly) positive on net ratings but there are a large number who do not have an opinion. Given how long she has been campaigning, you would have thought she would be higher which suggests a problem cutting through (DeSantis has more unfavourable ratings but approaching 20% more people do have a view of him - positive or negative - suggesting this is not just a Not Trump factor). That allows the Ds to set a very negative portrait if she is the R candidate (BTW, if you want to go on net ratings, Hakeem Jeffries should be in the frame to replace Biden).
Second, and more importantly, it’s not recognising how the GOP has changed. It’s a lot more working-class, populist orientated party with a growing distrust of business. Haley doesn’t cut the mustard for these people. Trump does (and you can argue if this is justified) but it is why he has the support he does and why he is a symptom not a cause. If Haley was the candidate - regardless of whether Trump ran as an Independent - there is a good case for arguing she wouldn’t win, part because of the enthusiasm gap and part because such a move would probably trigger a counter move on the D side to push out Biden (my guess is this is one scenario where they the Ds would push Harris to the top ticket and have this as ‘woman v woman’ with Harris’ Black heritage being used to mobilise the base).
It’s not a coincidence Haley is being pushed as the alternative to Trump at the same time the polls for Biden in a Biden v Trump rematch have got worse. Not long ago, we were told that Trump was the candidate the Ds wanted most. Now the fear is Trump may get in again hence the switch has gone from all in on the criminal trials (which you may have noticed has got far less attention in the centre left / left press in recent weeks) and more to finding a Republican alternative.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
Many people brought meaningful change to the UK. Attlee. Blair. Goering. Change is not the same as good.
Indeed, notwithstanding 13 years of New Labour in-between, many of Thatchers Friedman economics chickens are coming home to roost as we speak. Failed privatised utilities and the current housing crisis can be traced back to the 1980s. Her Euroscepticism coupled with her client press boosted reputation unwittingly made her the Godmother of Brexit.
Deregulation of the City and handing the economy over to financial speculators hasn't been an unequivocal long term success either.
Without North Sea oil nor "selling off the family silver" by privatisations, Thatcherism style remodeling of the country is no longer possible, even if the challenges weren't so different.
Primary and tertiary industrial policy too. All but gone.
My own view is that had we kept wide swathes of the economy nationalised, retained exchange controls, kept subsidising coal, ship, and car production, retained the closed shop, secondary picketing, and prices and incomes policies, our economic performance over the past 44 years would have been similar to that of Argentina, over the same period.
Privatising utilities was an absurdity.
Renault, in the same boat as BL were nationalised, recovered and refloated. What was wrong with that? Contrary to EU intervention rules, Italy propped up steelmaking and shipbuilding and they are in a less unhealthy state than our industrial base.
Unions needed their wings clipping after three decades of industrial strife, but we are now at a point where the current Government plans to reduce further the notion of the right to withdraw labour.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
Under normal circumstances you are right. Sunak however seems to go out of his way to antagonise those people he is momentarily pandering to. Private helicopter to and from London to Glasgow for Cop26, an almost empty airliner for a couple of hours at Cop 28. Sometimes wearing that hair shirt pays dividends. I doubt Rishi owns one.
I think by now we are entitled to conclude that Sunak is well aware of the criticisms and has decided to carry on with the helicopters, private jets and high-altitude photo opportunities regardless. That must tell us something about him.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
Is there an issue where he hasn’t backed both sides of the argument yet?
Like Boris with Brexit?
Yes, Pledging the Nationalisation of utilities/ruling out nationalisation of utilities, Accepting referendum/calling for people’s vote, Vegetarian on moral grounds/eating fish, Calling himself a Republican/accepting a knighthood Calling Corbyn a friend/expelling him from party Campaigning as a left winger/embracing Thatcher Ruling out giving interviews to the Sun/Writing for The Sun
etc etc are a bit like Boris writing two letters before going for Leave
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Agreed. One of the (many) ludicrous claims during the pandemic was that being there was unnecessary, everything could be done by computers. Well, as we now all know, computers are shit and being there does matter.
Anyone remember Zoom ‘parties’? Even the thought makes me shudder.
The Zoom lockdown events have put me off quizzes for life.
As someone who is presently, and probably for the rest of my life, somewhat disabled, I’m very grateful for Zoom. I, like many others, discovered Zoom early in the Covid pandemic and then it saved my sanity. Now it enables me to keep in touch with all sorts of activities and keep my brain active. Groups like pb are valuable, of course, but we have to imagine what posters look like. On Zoom we can see.
Do you find yourself subconsciously imagining members look like their (human) avatars? For a long time I struggled not to picture Barty Bobs as a dandy pirate, for example.
TBH no. Perhaps I’m not imaginative enough! I would like to attend a Pb gathering, were there to be another, but I don’t suppose I will. I might now, of course. Incidentally, and for the avoidance of doubt, I look nothing like my avatar!
I was going to suggest meeting over Essex CC on a weekday in the summer once, but I was banned
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
I sometimes think Starmer is in danger of trying too hard.
The main point of this is to make it clear that Corbynism is dead. He just can't emphasise that too often, and it has got him consistent 20 point poll leads. So expect such stunts to continue.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
Under normal circumstances you are right. Sunak however seems to go out of his way to antagonise those people he is momentarily pandering to. Private helicopter to and from London to Glasgow for Cop26, an almost empty airliner for a couple of hours at Cop 28. Sometimes wearing that hair shirt pays dividends. I doubt Rishi owns one.
I think by now we are entitled to conclude that Sunak is well aware of the criticisms and has decided to carry on with the helicopters, private jets and high-altitude photo opportunities regardless. That must tell us something about him.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Conference is about REDUCING carbon footprint!
And? That still requires people to meet, discuss, lobby to get the necessary agreements. Good luck doing all that via zoom.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Agreed. One of the (many) ludicrous claims during the pandemic was that being there was unnecessary, everything could be done by computers. Well, as we now all know, computers are shit and being there does matter.
Anyone remember Zoom ‘parties’? Even the thought makes me shudder.
The Zoom lockdown events have put me off quizzes for life.
As someone who is presently, and probably for the rest of my life, somewhat disabled, I’m very grateful for Zoom. I, like many others, discovered Zoom early in the Covid pandemic and then it saved my sanity. Now it enables me to keep in touch with all sorts of activities and keep my brain active. Groups like pb are valuable, of course, but we have to imagine what posters look like. On Zoom we can see.
Do you find yourself subconsciously imagining members look like their (human) avatars? For a long time I struggled not to picture Barty Bobs as a dandy pirate, for example.
TBH no. Perhaps I’m not imaginative enough! I would like to attend a Pb gathering, were there to be another, but I don’t suppose I will. I might now, of course. Incidentally, and for the avoidance of doubt, I look nothing like my avatar!
I was going to suggest meeting over Essex CC on a weekday in the summer once, but I was banned
(From here, not Chelmsford)
Good idea; I managed one trip last season with the help of my son. Next year might be a bit easier, but I wouldn’t, at the moment, hold out much hope.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
Under normal circumstances you are right. Sunak however seems to go out of his way to antagonise those people he is momentarily pandering to. Private helicopter to and from London to Glasgow for Cop26, an almost empty airliner for a couple of hours at Cop 28. Sometimes wearing that hair shirt pays dividends. I doubt Rishi owns one.
I think by now we are entitled to conclude that Sunak is well aware of the criticisms and has decided to carry on with the helicopters, private jets and high-altitude photo opportunities regardless. That must tell us something about him.
That he's a twat?
As with Ted Heath's reputed remark about Margaret Thatcher, I'd have to plead "I am not a doctor".
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Agreed. One of the (many) ludicrous claims during the pandemic was that being there was unnecessary, everything could be done by computers. Well, as we now all know, computers are shit and being there does matter.
Anyone remember Zoom ‘parties’? Even the thought makes me shudder.
The Zoom lockdown events have put me off quizzes for life.
As someone who is presently, and probably for the rest of my life, somewhat disabled, I’m very grateful for Zoom. I, like many others, discovered Zoom early in the Covid pandemic and then it saved my sanity. Now it enables me to keep in touch with all sorts of activities and keep my brain active. Groups like pb are valuable, of course, but we have to imagine what posters look like. On Zoom we can see.
Do you find yourself subconsciously imagining members look like their (human) avatars? For a long time I struggled not to picture Barty Bobs as a dandy pirate, for example.
TBH no. Perhaps I’m not imaginative enough! I would like to attend a Pb gathering, were there to be another, but I don’t suppose I will. I might now, of course. Incidentally, and for the avoidance of doubt, I look nothing like my avatar!
I was going to suggest meeting over Essex CC on a weekday in the summer once, but I was banned
(From here, not Chelmsford)
Good idea; I managed one trip last season with the help of my son. Next year might be a bit easier, but I wouldn’t, at the moment, hold out much hope.
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
I sometimes think Starmer is in danger of trying too hard.
The main point of this is to make it clear that Corbynism is dead. He just can't emphasise that too often, and it has got him consistent 20 point poll leads. So expect such stunts to continue.
Well, all it’s doing for me is to make me look even more carefully at Davey and his team.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Ah but you forget. "Righties" can't be guilty of hypocrisy because they never pretend to care about anything. It's one of the perks of being one.
Not sure about that. Talking about family values while splitting up families via the immigration system. Attacking welfare while shovelling money to pensioners. Talking about low taxes while always being the ones putting up VAT. Talking about cancel culture while banning critics of the government from talking to civil servants or speaking at government events. Talking about cutting red tape while putting up barriers to trade with Europe. Talking about freedom while reducing rights to protest or take industrial action...
Oh yes, totally. But I was referencing that specific 'hypocrisy' defined as saying you care a lot about matters other than the interests of yourself and your family and then being 'caught out' doing things that benefit yourself and your family. Like being successful or something ghastly like that.
Still, you know, it's irritating but it comes with the territory and it just means we on the left have to live to a higher set of standards. Which most days we do.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Conference is about REDUCING carbon footprint!
And? That still requires people to meet, discuss, lobby to get the necessary agreements. Good luck doing all that via zoom.
Excuses, excuses!
No, they are legitimate reasons to prefer face-to-face meetings over zoom.
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
I sometimes think Starmer is in danger of trying too hard.
The main point of this is to make it clear that Corbynism is dead. He just can't emphasise that too often, and it has got him consistent 20 point poll leads. So expect such stunts to continue.
Well, all it’s doing for me is to make me look even more carefully at Davey and his team.
If you’re in a Lib Dem Tory marginal, good. And you’re in Chelmsford I think? In which case go for it.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Conference is about REDUCING carbon footprint!
And? That still requires people to meet, discuss, lobby to get the necessary agreements. Good luck doing all that via zoom.
Excuses, excuses!
No, they are legitimate reasons to prefer face-to-face meetings over zoom.
And the opposite of course. Sometimes a meeting is best done by old fashioned phone conferencing so you can't see anyone. You just hear voices.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Conference is about REDUCING carbon footprint!
And? That still requires people to meet, discuss, lobby to get the necessary agreements. Good luck doing all that via zoom.
Excuses, excuses!
No, they are legitimate reasons to prefer face-to-face meetings over zoom.
Zoom has a smaller carbon footprint than face-to-face meetings. This is a "climate" summit.
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
I sometimes think Starmer is in danger of trying too hard.
Thing is, that's where the frontline of the electoral battleground currently is- voters who are old enough and right wing enough to have been pretty keen on Thatcher.
It's almost a law of nature that parties on the up expand into opposition territory- Boris did it in 2019.
It's what Starmer does with all those votes that will be interesting; Thatcher (for example) in power was rather different to campaigning Thatcher.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Conference is about REDUCING carbon footprint!
And? That still requires people to meet, discuss, lobby to get the necessary agreements. Good luck doing all that via zoom.
Excuses, excuses!
No, they are legitimate reasons to prefer face-to-face meetings over zoom.
Zoom has a smaller carbon footprint than face-to-face meetings. This is a "climate" summit.
Completely ignoring what I have said regarding the effectiveness of zoom meetings. Are you just trolling?
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Conference is about REDUCING carbon footprint!
And? That still requires people to meet, discuss, lobby to get the necessary agreements. Good luck doing all that via zoom.
Excuses, excuses!
No, they are legitimate reasons to prefer face-to-face meetings over zoom.
Zoom has a smaller carbon footprint than face-to-face meetings. This is a "climate" summit.
Completely ignoring what I have said regarding the effectiveness of zoom meetings. Are you just trolling?
Are you really suggesting that long-distance air travel has a smaller carbon footprint than zoom? Seriously?
Completely snowed in now. Cannot open front door. Managed to open back door and collect wood for fire. It is quite beautiful outside. There is a magical stillness in a snow covered landscape.
Fortunately the main road nearby seems to have been cleared. So at least we can walk to the town, even it will take an hour or so.
1. Scotland does not have the same rebuttable presumption that computer evidence is reliable unless the defendant proves otherwise. 2. Scottish prosecutors had doubts about Horizon evidence and did not therefore prosecute. 3. The Post Office in Scotland could not run its own prosecutions so there was some independent review - and attempt to comply with the rules - of the type so dismally lacking in England & Wales.
Bluntly the PO was not able to subvert the Scottish criminal justice system in the way that it did elsewhere. Though the evidence in recent days suggests that the PO did try to by trying to bully Scottish prosecutors.
It makes Ministers' refusal to look again at the computer evidence presumption even more unconscionable than it is.
Many thanks - I'd missed it. I'd been wondering what the situation was up here. Were there really no prosecutions in Scotland?
Presumably the PF and Crown Office might have had their suspicions - but without looking into it in detail they couldn't be sure. And it would be unfair to expect them to spend the time to do so (which they couldn't, without a case, anyway, which meant a formal complaint from the PO) or to go public - unless, that was, there was an actual case in Scotland and expert witnesses could go to town on the prosecution evidence and the whole laundry-basket could be emptied out in court.
I do wonder however how many Scottish subPMs had to pay the losses the system reportedly magicked out of thin air, and lost their livelihoods on the quiet, even if they did not go to court.
I'm now beginning to wonder just why at least one supermarket I know closed its subPO.
I don't know the answer to your first question. The key point is that Scots law required corroboration and there was no such evidence.
But you make an important point which is often overlooked: many SPMs were pursued for the money but not prosecuted. So the injustice goes wider than the prosecutions - all the debt recovery proceedings are also fundamentally flawed. And all the monies SPMs paid out of their own pockets to resolve discrepancies were obtained under false pretences.
Basically nothing the PO legal department did in relation to the SPM - whether civil or criminal - from 2000 onwards - can be relied on.
I wouldn't rely on anything they say or do now, frankly, given the ongoing disclosure failings. The entire legal and investigative function at the PO is discredited.
One of the PO investigation managers who recently gave evidence is now an internal investigator at Sellafield, which is a tad worrying. She boasts about her time at the PO on her LinkedIn page which shows an alarming lack of awareness.
The position in Scotland is not quite as different as is being portrayed. The relevant provision is paragraph 4 of schedule 8 of the Criminal Procedure (S) Act 1995 which provides:
"Unless the court otherwise directs, a document may in any criminal proceedings be taken to be a document kept by a business or undertaking or by or on behalf of the holder of a paid or unpaid office if it is certified as such by a docquet in the prescribed form and purporting to be authenticated, in such manner as may be prescribed— (a) by a person authorised to authenticate such a docquet on behalf of the business or undertaking by which; or (b) by, or by a person authorised to authenticate such a docquet on behalf of, the office-holder by whom, the document was kept."
This is know as the business records exception in relation to hearsay. If the holder of the records confirms that they are the records of the business with the appropriate certificate then those records are deemed to be accurate and true records unless the contrary is shown. So if the likes of the hapless Mr Singh had certified the Horizon records for a prosecution in Scotland that would have created a similar position to that in England and Wales.
The prosecution, however, would still be in the hands of the COPFS and not in the hands of the PO itself so it would have been independently assessed.
The requirement for corroboration of the records would normally be met by someone speaking to the records which showed the alleged deficiency. The court would normally be looking for someone who had carried out an investigation or audit which vouched the shortfall.
I am not aware of prosecutions in Scotland (as opposed to civil claims) but it seems very unlikely that there were not any. If Procurators fiscal were unwilling to proceed on the basis of the Horizon evidence as early as 2012 then I think that their good sense and judgment is to be commended.
Thank you.
The problem was that the PO did not actually carry out any investigations into what was causing the discrepancies and alleged shortfalls. They simply accepted what Horizon was telling them. So they would have had difficulty finding someone to say they'd done an audit which showed the shortfall. The hapless Mr Singh's evidence was that only Fujitsu could explain how Horizon worked.
The real problem seems to me to be this one: when you are faced with a discrepancy like this you need to eliminate all possibilities before assuming theft eg human error, fat finger, computer error, bug, some sort of malfunction etc.,. It is only when you have eliminated all other possibilities that you get into the question of malice. PO investigators did not do that. They automatically assumed theft and did not look at what else might have been going wrong. So they were not in a position to say that the Horizon record was true because..... and then provide an explanation.
It was true because it was Horizon. Not it was true because they'd done these checks and these tests and they'd looked at this, that and the other and so on.
Hence the increasing hysteria when it was challenged and hence - too - the refusal to make proper disclosure because that disclosure would have shown that no proper investigations had been done and such audits as there were did show a host of problems. There was more than enough reasonable doubt to make even the thought of prosecution a non-starter.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Conference is about REDUCING carbon footprint!
And? That still requires people to meet, discuss, lobby to get the necessary agreements. Good luck doing all that via zoom.
Excuses, excuses!
No, they are legitimate reasons to prefer face-to-face meetings over zoom.
Zoom has a smaller carbon footprint than face-to-face meetings. This is a "climate" summit.
Completely ignoring what I have said regarding the effectiveness of zoom meetings. Are you just trolling?
Are you really suggesting that long-distance air travel has a smaller carbon footprint than zoom? Seriously?
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
I sometimes think Starmer is in danger of trying too hard.
Thing is, that's where the frontline of the electoral battleground currently is- voters who are old enough and right wing enough to have been pretty keen on Thatcher.
It's almost a law of nature that parties on the up expand into opposition territory- Boris did it in 2019.
It's what Starmer does with all those votes that will be interesting; Thatcher (for example) in power was rather different to campaigning Thatcher.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Conference is about REDUCING carbon footprint!
And? That still requires people to meet, discuss, lobby to get the necessary agreements. Good luck doing all that via zoom.
Excuses, excuses!
No, they are legitimate reasons to prefer face-to-face meetings over zoom.
Zoom has a smaller carbon footprint than face-to-face meetings. This is a "climate" summit.
Completely ignoring what I have said regarding the effectiveness of zoom meetings. Are you just trolling?
Are you really suggesting that long-distance air travel has a smaller carbon footprint than zoom? Seriously?
If people making long distance trips to meet face to face leads to more meaningful commitments on actual carbon emission reductions then it’s well worth the extra few tonnes of CO2 to achieve many millions of tonnes of reduction.
Insisting everyone does COP summits by zoom is the ultimate in counter-productive virtue signalling.
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
I sometimes think Starmer is in danger of trying too hard.
The main point of this is to make it clear that Corbynism is dead. He just can't emphasise that too often, and it has got him consistent 20 point poll leads. So expect such stunts to continue.
Well, all it’s doing for me is to make me look even more carefully at Davey and his team.
If you’re in a Lib Dem Tory marginal, good. And you’re in Chelmsford I think? In which case go for it.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Agreed. One of the (many) ludicrous claims during the pandemic was that being there was unnecessary, everything could be done by computers. Well, as we now all know, computers are shit and being there does matter.
Anyone remember Zoom ‘parties’? Even the thought makes me shudder.
The Zoom lockdown events have put me off quizzes for life.
As someone who is presently, and probably for the rest of my life, somewhat disabled, I’m very grateful for Zoom. I, like many others, discovered Zoom early in the Covid pandemic and then it saved my sanity. Now it enables me to keep in touch with all sorts of activities and keep my brain active. Groups like pb are valuable, of course, but we have to imagine what posters look like. On Zoom we can see.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
Many people brought meaningful change to the UK. Attlee. Blair. Goering. Change is not the same as good.
Indeed, notwithstanding 13 years of New Labour in-between, many of Thatchers Friedman economics chickens are coming home to roost as we speak. Failed privatised utilities and the current housing crisis can be traced back to the 1980s. Her Euroscepticism coupled with her client press boosted reputation unwittingly made her the Godmother of Brexit.
“the Godmother of Brexit.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing
Well two thirds of the public think it is. Though it's an inaccurate characterisation of her anyway.
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
I sometimes think Starmer is in danger of trying too hard.
The main point of this is to make it clear that Corbynism is dead. He just can't emphasise that too often, and it has got him consistent 20 point poll leads. So expect such stunts to continue.
Well, all it’s doing for me is to make me look even more carefully at Davey and his team.
If you’re in a Lib Dem Tory marginal, good. And you’re in Chelmsford I think? In which case go for it.
Witham actually.
Oh, so your vote matters almost as little as mine does in Lewisham Deptford. Fill your boots!
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
Many people brought meaningful change to the UK. Attlee. Blair. Goering. Change is not the same as good.
Indeed, notwithstanding 13 years of New Labour in-between, many of Thatchers Friedman economics chickens are coming home to roost as we speak. Failed privatised utilities and the current housing crisis can be traced back to the 1980s. Her Euroscepticism coupled with her client press boosted reputation unwittingly made her the Godmother of Brexit.
“the Godmother of Brexit.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing
Well two thirds of the public think it is. Though it's an inaccurate characterisation of her anyway.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
Many people brought meaningful change to the UK. Attlee. Blair. Goering. Change is not the same as good.
Indeed, notwithstanding 13 years of New Labour in-between, many of Thatchers Friedman economics chickens are coming home to roost as we speak. Failed privatised utilities and the current housing crisis can be traced back to the 1980s. Her Euroscepticism coupled with her client press boosted reputation unwittingly made her the Godmother of Brexit.
Deregulation of the City and handing the economy over to financial speculators hasn't been an unequivocal long term success either.
Without North Sea oil nor "selling off the family silver" by privatisations, Thatcherism style remodeling of the country is no longer possible, even if the challenges weren't so different.
Primary and tertiary industrial policy too. All but gone.
My own view is that had we kept wide swathes of the economy nationalised, retained exchange controls, kept subsidising coal, ship, and car production, retained the closed shop, secondary picketing, and prices and incomes policies, our economic performance over the past 44 years would have been similar to that of Argentina, over the same period.
Privatising utilities was an absurdity.
Renault, in the same boat as BL were nationalised, recovered and refloated. What was wrong with that? Contrary to EU intervention rules, Italy propped up steelmaking and shipbuilding and they are in a less unhealthy state than our industrial base.
Unions needed their wings clipping after three decades of industrial strife, but we are now at a point where the current Government plans to reduce further the notion of the right to withdraw labour.
Privatisation of water turned out very badly. Telecoms, on the other hand, turned out very well.
Renault is highly profitable, but it did what was resisted at BL. Slashing production, closing factories, and focusing on high value products.
Italy has a bigger manufacturing sector than we have, but its overall economic performance has been much worse then the UK’s, over 25 years.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
Many people brought meaningful change to the UK. Attlee. Blair. Goering. Change is not the same as good.
Indeed, notwithstanding 13 years of New Labour in-between, many of Thatchers Friedman economics chickens are coming home to roost as we speak. Failed privatised utilities and the current housing crisis can be traced back to the 1980s. Her Euroscepticism coupled with her client press boosted reputation unwittingly made her the Godmother of Brexit.
“the Godmother of Brexit.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing
Well two thirds of the public think it is. Though it's an inaccurate characterisation of her anyway.
Come, come. If I had a pound for every PB Brexiteer who claimed had she hung on another three years Mrs T. Would have voted Leave, I would have at least a tenner.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
Many people brought meaningful change to the UK. Attlee. Blair. Goering. Change is not the same as good.
Indeed, notwithstanding 13 years of New Labour in-between, many of Thatchers Friedman economics chickens are coming home to roost as we speak. Failed privatised utilities and the current housing crisis can be traced back to the 1980s. Her Euroscepticism coupled with her client press boosted reputation unwittingly made her the Godmother of Brexit.
Deregulation of the City and handing the economy over to financial speculators hasn't been an unequivocal long term success either.
Without North Sea oil nor "selling off the family silver" by privatisations, Thatcherism style remodeling of the country is no longer possible, even if the challenges weren't so different.
Primary and tertiary industrial policy too. All but gone.
My own view is that had we kept wide swathes of the economy nationalised, retained exchange controls, kept subsidising coal, ship, and car production, retained the closed shop, secondary picketing, and prices and incomes policies, our economic performance over the past 44 years would have been similar to that of Argentina, over the same period.
Privatising utilities was an absurdity.
Renault, in the same boat as BL were nationalised, recovered and refloated. What was wrong with that? Contrary to EU intervention rules, Italy propped up steelmaking and shipbuilding and they are in a less unhealthy state than our industrial base.
Unions needed their wings clipping after three decades of industrial strife, but we are now at a point where the current Government plans to reduce further the notion of the right to withdraw labour.
Privatisation of water turned out very badly. Telecoms, on the other hand, turned out very well.
Renault is highly profitable, but it did what was resisted at BL. Slashing production, closing factories, and focusing on high value products.
Italy has a bigger manufacturing sector than we have, but its overall economic performance has been much worse then the UK’s, over 25 years.
Telecom worked out well because it coincided with a technological expansion.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
Many people brought meaningful change to the UK. Attlee. Blair. Goering. Change is not the same as good.
Indeed, notwithstanding 13 years of New Labour in-between, many of Thatchers Friedman economics chickens are coming home to roost as we speak. Failed privatised utilities and the current housing crisis can be traced back to the 1980s. Her Euroscepticism coupled with her client press boosted reputation unwittingly made her the Godmother of Brexit.
Deregulation of the City and handing the economy over to financial speculators hasn't been an unequivocal long term success either.
Without North Sea oil nor "selling off the family silver" by privatisations, Thatcherism style remodeling of the country is no longer possible, even if the challenges weren't so different.
Primary and tertiary industrial policy too. All but gone.
My own view is that had we kept wide swathes of the economy nationalised, retained exchange controls, kept subsidising coal, ship, and car production, retained the closed shop, secondary picketing, and prices and incomes policies, our economic performance over the past 44 years would have been similar to that of Argentina, over the same period.
Privatising utilities was an absurdity.
Renault, in the same boat as BL were nationalised, recovered and refloated. What was wrong with that? Contrary to EU intervention rules, Italy propped up steelmaking and shipbuilding and they are in a less unhealthy state than our industrial base.
Unions needed their wings clipping after three decades of industrial strife, but we are now at a point where the current Government plans to reduce further the notion of the right to withdraw labour.
Privatisation of water turned out very badly. Telecoms, on the other hand, turned out very well.
Renault is highly profitable, but it did what was resisted at BL. Slashing production, closing factories, and focusing on high value products.
Italy has a bigger manufacturing sector than we have, but its overall economic performance has been much worse then the UK’s, over 25 years.
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
I sometimes think Starmer is in danger of trying too hard.
Thing is, that's where the frontline of the electoral battleground currently is- voters who are old enough and right wing enough to have been pretty keen on Thatcher.
It's almost a law of nature that parties on the up expand into opposition territory- Boris did it in 2019.
It's what Starmer does with all those votes that will be interesting; Thatcher (for example) in power was rather different to campaigning Thatcher.
Every Labour Prime Minister since Thatcher (admittedly that's only 2), and now its likely future one has said something warm about herat some point, when all three were vehement opponents (One imagines Starmer's time editing Socialist Alternatives wasn't full of praise) when she was PM.
They do so because it shows a certain generosity and open-mindedness to opponents you disagree with, and because she's now so far in the past it doesn't undermine your pitch that the Tories are rubbish today. Plus it shows they're not in the bit of the Labour party that eternally wants to cosplay the 1980s again in the hope there's a different result this time. Finally, it's quite useful if you want to sound a bit radical and someone who will change things but still reassure Tory switchers.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Conference is about REDUCING carbon footprint!
And? That still requires people to meet, discuss, lobby to get the necessary agreements. Good luck doing all that via zoom.
Excuses, excuses!
No, they are legitimate reasons to prefer face-to-face meetings over zoom.
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
I sometimes think Starmer is in danger of trying too hard.
Thing is, that's where the frontline of the electoral battleground currently is- voters who are old enough and right wing enough to have been pretty keen on Thatcher.
It's almost a law of nature that parties on the up expand into opposition territory- Boris did it in 2019.
It's what Starmer does with all those votes that will be interesting; Thatcher (for example) in power was rather different to campaigning Thatcher.
Quite a lot about the national finances has changed since then. John Maynard Keynes on what to do when the facts change applies here.
Personally, I'd say that fees are much less an issue than maintenance funding while students are studying, but that's another matter.
Politicians change their views to grope towards what the electorate wants. That's not news. Thatcher did it (she was happy enough to be in Heath's cabinet), Blair did it (contrast '83 and '97), Johnson did it.
The advantage Starmer has, the only reason he's on track for the Premiership, is how comprehensively the Conservative class of 2019 have fouled the nest. And that was their choice. Had Boris not repeatedly doubled down on a pathetic lie, he'd probably still be there.
I'm not sure that's lefty hypocrisy, given that the three people cited in the second article as availing themselves of a private jet are Jeff Bezos, Prince (?) Charles and Boris Johnson. Righty hypocrisy?
Rishi took a huge personal airliner there and back to spend just 12 hours in Dubai!
Why does the amount of time there matter to his transport choice?
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
As he not heard of Zoom or Teams??
Ridiculous. Being at a conference in person is far more effective than staring at an often blank compter screen.
Conference is about REDUCING carbon footprint!
And? That still requires people to meet, discuss, lobby to get the necessary agreements. Good luck doing all that via zoom.
Excuses, excuses!
No, they are legitimate reasons to prefer face-to-face meetings over zoom.
And the opposite of course. Sometimes a meeting is best done by old fashioned phone conferencing so you can't see anyone. You just hear voices.
There's an interesting thing. Normally on Teams calls the default is Camera On. But in a couple of our internal weekly calls the default has become Camera Off.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
Many people brought meaningful change to the UK. Attlee. Blair. Goering. Change is not the same as good.
Indeed, notwithstanding 13 years of New Labour in-between, many of Thatchers Friedman economics chickens are coming home to roost as we speak. Failed privatised utilities and the current housing crisis can be traced back to the 1980s. Her Euroscepticism coupled with her client press boosted reputation unwittingly made her the Godmother of Brexit.
Deregulation of the City and handing the economy over to financial speculators hasn't been an unequivocal long term success either.
Without North Sea oil nor "selling off the family silver" by privatisations, Thatcherism style remodeling of the country is no longer possible, even if the challenges weren't so different.
Primary and tertiary industrial policy too. All but gone.
My own view is that had we kept wide swathes of the economy nationalised, retained exchange controls, kept subsidising coal, ship, and car production, retained the closed shop, secondary picketing, and prices and incomes policies, our economic performance over the past 44 years would have been similar to that of Argentina, over the same period.
Privatising utilities was an absurdity.
Renault, in the same boat as BL were nationalised, recovered and refloated. What was wrong with that? Contrary to EU intervention rules, Italy propped up steelmaking and shipbuilding and they are in a less unhealthy state than our industrial base.
Unions needed their wings clipping after three decades of industrial strife, but we are now at a point where the current Government plans to reduce further the notion of the right to withdraw labour.
Privatisation of water turned out very badly. Telecoms, on the other hand, turned out very well.
Renault is highly profitable, but it did what was resisted at BL. Slashing production, closing factories, and focusing on high value products.
Renault didn't focus on high value products; their vaches d'argent were always the 5/Clio. Although they did use conspicuous success in motorsports, something that BL/ARG never enjoyed, to market those econoboxes.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
He suddenly looks like he’s wearing a weird multicoloured toupee
Had the weird experience of thinking about you yesterday at a birthday lunch. I didn’t know your favourite knife-makers made knives for dining purposes but they were every bit as sharp as their fold up fun knives.
Lovely knives
Tho technically my favourite knives are these
Wolf and Dingo. Hand forged on Bodmin Moor. I have three. Superb
Only problem is they are 25 times the price of Opinel
I never had you down as a rustle something up oh where's the asafoetida kind of guy.
I have a mild knife obsession
Coincidentally I am reading a book about forensic psychiatry and “an obsession with knives” is one of the top 20 primary indicators of psychopathy
I also tick several other boxes. Odd sensation
Not an obsession, but I too love pocket knives and similar. I think it stems from a childhood spent camping.
I have a beautiful Laguiole corkscrew that I simply love to handle too.
My most evil knife is my sailors knife, designed for cutting ropes in an emergency, which I keep on a cord in my buoyancy aid.
Must be a bit alarming for your patients.
I'm something of a fan.
Opinel knives are beautifully sharpenable. I have one as my backup "take to restaurants in case their steak knives are blunt" pocket knife.
More worringly for monoglot British they have one called a "Couteau d'Office", which sounds like something needed by Miss Moneypenny for controlling 007 and to obtain sweetbread-slices for the lunchtime sandwiches.
You are presumably aware that having a knife or sharpened implement with a blade of more than 3 inches in a public place without lawful authoritiy is an offence under s 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988? I really wouldn't carry a blade like that around with you.
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
I sometimes think Starmer is in danger of trying too hard.
Thing is, that's where the frontline of the electoral battleground currently is- voters who are old enough and right wing enough to have been pretty keen on Thatcher.
It's almost a law of nature that parties on the up expand into opposition territory- Boris did it in 2019.
It's what Starmer does with all those votes that will be interesting; Thatcher (for example) in power was rather different to campaigning Thatcher.
Quite a lot about the national finances has changed since then. John Maynard Keynes on what to do when the facts change applies here.
Personally, I'd say that fees are much less an issue than maintenance funding while students are studying, but that's another matter.
Politicians change their views to grope towards what the electorate wants. That's not news. Thatcher did it (she was happy enough to be in Heath's cabinet), Blair did it (contrast '83 and '97), Johnson did it.
The advantage Starmer has, the only reason he's on track for the Premiership, is how comprehensively the Conservative class of 2019 have fouled the nest. And that was their choice. Had Boris not repeatedly doubled down on a pathetic lie, he'd probably still be there.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
He suddenly looks like he’s wearing a weird multicoloured toupee
Had the weird experience of thinking about you yesterday at a birthday lunch. I didn’t know your favourite knife-makers made knives for dining purposes but they were every bit as sharp as their fold up fun knives.
Lovely knives
Tho technically my favourite knives are these
Wolf and Dingo. Hand forged on Bodmin Moor. I have three. Superb
Only problem is they are 25 times the price of Opinel
I never had you down as a rustle something up oh where's the asafoetida kind of guy.
I have a mild knife obsession
Coincidentally I am reading a book about forensic psychiatry and “an obsession with knives” is one of the top 20 primary indicators of psychopathy
I also tick several other boxes. Odd sensation
Not an obsession, but I too love pocket knives and similar. I think it stems from a childhood spent camping.
I have a beautiful Laguiole corkscrew that I simply love to handle too.
My most evil knife is my sailors knife, designed for cutting ropes in an emergency, which I keep on a cord in my buoyancy aid.
Must be a bit alarming for your patients.
I'm something of a fan.
Opinel knives are beautifully sharpenable. I have one as my backup "take to restaurants in case their steak knives are blunt" pocket knife.
More worringly for monoglot British they have one called a "Couteau d'Office", which sounds like something needed by Miss Moneypenny for controlling 007 and to obtain sweetbread-slices for the lunchtime sandwiches.
You are presumably aware that having a knife or sharpened implement with a blade of more than 3 inches in a public place without lawful authoritiy is an offence under s 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988? I really wouldn't carry a blade like that around with you.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
He suddenly looks like he’s wearing a weird multicoloured toupee
Had the weird experience of thinking about you yesterday at a birthday lunch. I didn’t know your favourite knife-makers made knives for dining purposes but they were every bit as sharp as their fold up fun knives.
Lovely knives
Tho technically my favourite knives are these
Wolf and Dingo. Hand forged on Bodmin Moor. I have three. Superb
Only problem is they are 25 times the price of Opinel
I never had you down as a rustle something up oh where's the asafoetida kind of guy.
I have a mild knife obsession
Coincidentally I am reading a book about forensic psychiatry and “an obsession with knives” is one of the top 20 primary indicators of psychopathy
I also tick several other boxes. Odd sensation
Not an obsession, but I too love pocket knives and similar. I think it stems from a childhood spent camping.
I have a beautiful Laguiole corkscrew that I simply love to handle too.
My most evil knife is my sailors knife, designed for cutting ropes in an emergency, which I keep on a cord in my buoyancy aid.
Must be a bit alarming for your patients.
I'm something of a fan.
Opinel knives are beautifully sharpenable. I have one as my backup "take to restaurants in case their steak knives are blunt" pocket knife.
More worringly for monoglot British they have one called a "Couteau d'Office", which sounds like something needed by Miss Moneypenny for controlling 007 and to obtain sweetbread-slices for the lunchtime sandwiches.
You are presumably aware that having a knife or sharpened implement with a blade of more than 3 inches in a public place without lawful authoritiy is an offence under s 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988? I really wouldn't carry a blade like that around with you.
I've always wondered how you get it home from the shops.
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
I sometimes think Starmer is in danger of trying too hard.
The main point of this is to make it clear that Corbynism is dead. He just can't emphasise that too often, and it has got him consistent 20 point poll leads. So expect such stunts to continue.
Well, all it’s doing for me is to make me look even more carefully at Davey and his team.
If you’re in a Lib Dem Tory marginal, good. And you’re in Chelmsford I think? In which case go for it.
Witham actually.
I played football in Witham last month - 3rd game back after a vitrectomy and got poked in the eye after ten mins!
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
He suddenly looks like he’s wearing a weird multicoloured toupee
Had the weird experience of thinking about you yesterday at a birthday lunch. I didn’t know your favourite knife-makers made knives for dining purposes but they were every bit as sharp as their fold up fun knives.
Lovely knives
Tho technically my favourite knives are these
Wolf and Dingo. Hand forged on Bodmin Moor. I have three. Superb
Only problem is they are 25 times the price of Opinel
I never had you down as a rustle something up oh where's the asafoetida kind of guy.
I have a mild knife obsession
Coincidentally I am reading a book about forensic psychiatry and “an obsession with knives” is one of the top 20 primary indicators of psychopathy
I also tick several other boxes. Odd sensation
Not an obsession, but I too love pocket knives and similar. I think it stems from a childhood spent camping.
I have a beautiful Laguiole corkscrew that I simply love to handle too.
My most evil knife is my sailors knife, designed for cutting ropes in an emergency, which I keep on a cord in my buoyancy aid.
Must be a bit alarming for your patients.
I'm something of a fan.
Opinel knives are beautifully sharpenable. I have one as my backup "take to restaurants in case their steak knives are blunt" pocket knife.
More worringly for monoglot British they have one called a "Couteau d'Office", which sounds like something needed by Miss Moneypenny for controlling 007 and to obtain sweetbread-slices for the lunchtime sandwiches.
You are presumably aware that having a knife or sharpened implement with a blade of more than 3 inches in a public place without lawful authoritiy is an offence under s 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988? I really wouldn't carry a blade like that around with you.
A lot of men are very poor at estimating when it comes to the old "how many inches long?" question.
Completely snowed in now. Cannot open front door. Managed to open back door and collect wood for fire. It is quite beautiful outside. There is a magical stillness in a snow covered landscape.
Fortunately the main road nearby seems to have been cleared. So at least we can walk to the town, even it will take an hour or so.
1. Scotland does not have the same rebuttable presumption that computer evidence is reliable unless the defendant proves otherwise. 2. Scottish prosecutors had doubts about Horizon evidence and did not therefore prosecute. 3. The Post Office in Scotland could not run its own prosecutions so there was some independent review - and attempt to comply with the rules - of the type so dismally lacking in England & Wales.
Bluntly the PO was not able to subvert the Scottish criminal justice system in the way that it did elsewhere. Though the evidence in recent days suggests that the PO did try to by trying to bully Scottish prosecutors.
It makes Ministers' refusal to look again at the computer evidence presumption even more unconscionable than it is.
Many thanks - I'd missed it. I'd been wondering what the situation was up here. Were there really no prosecutions in Scotland?
Presumably the PF and Crown Office might have had their suspicions - but without looking into it in detail they couldn't be sure. And it would be unfair to expect them to spend the time to do so (which they couldn't, without a case, anyway, which meant a formal complaint from the PO) or to go public - unless, that was, there was an actual case in Scotland and expert witnesses could go to town on the prosecution evidence and the whole laundry-basket could be emptied out in court.
I do wonder however how many Scottish subPMs had to pay the losses the system reportedly magicked out of thin air, and lost their livelihoods on the quiet, even if they did not go to court.
I'm now beginning to wonder just why at least one supermarket I know closed its subPO.
I don't know the answer to your first question. The key point is that Scots law required corroboration and there was no such evidence.
But you make an important point which is often overlooked: many SPMs were pursued for the money but not prosecuted. So the injustice goes wider than the prosecutions - all the debt recovery proceedings are also fundamentally flawed. And all the monies SPMs paid out of their own pockets to resolve discrepancies were obtained under false pretences.
Basically nothing the PO legal department did in relation to the SPM - whether civil or criminal - from 2000 onwards - can be relied on.
I wouldn't rely on anything they say or do now, frankly, given the ongoing disclosure failings. The entire legal and investigative function at the PO is discredited.
One of the PO investigation managers who recently gave evidence is now an internal investigator at Sellafield, which is a tad worrying. She boasts about her time at the PO on her LinkedIn page which shows an alarming lack of awareness.
The position in Scotland is not quite as different as is being portrayed. The relevant provision is paragraph 4 of schedule 8 of the Criminal Procedure (S) Act 1995 which provides:
"Unless the court otherwise directs, a document may in any criminal proceedings be taken to be a document kept by a business or undertaking or by or on behalf of the holder of a paid or unpaid office if it is certified as such by a docquet in the prescribed form and purporting to be authenticated, in such manner as may be prescribed— (a) by a person authorised to authenticate such a docquet on behalf of the business or undertaking by which; or (b) by, or by a person authorised to authenticate such a docquet on behalf of, the office-holder by whom, the document was kept."
This is know as the business records exception in relation to hearsay. If the holder of the records confirms that they are the records of the business with the appropriate certificate then those records are deemed to be accurate and true records unless the contrary is shown. So if the likes of the hapless Mr Singh had certified the Horizon records for a prosecution in Scotland that would have created a similar position to that in England and Wales.
The prosecution, however, would still be in the hands of the COPFS and not in the hands of the PO itself so it would have been independently assessed.
The requirement for corroboration of the records would normally be met by someone speaking to the records which showed the alleged deficiency. The court would normally be looking for someone who had carried out an investigation or audit which vouched the shortfall.
I am not aware of prosecutions in Scotland (as opposed to civil claims) but it seems very unlikely that there were not any. If Procurators fiscal were unwilling to proceed on the basis of the Horizon evidence as early as 2012 then I think that their good sense and judgment is to be commended.
Thank you.
The problem was that the PO did not actually carry out any investigations into what was causing the discrepancies and alleged shortfalls. They simply accepted what Horizon was telling them. So they would have had difficulty finding someone to say they'd done an audit which showed the shortfall. The hapless Mr Singh's evidence was that only Fujitsu could explain how Horizon worked.
The real problem seems to me to be this one: when you are faced with a discrepancy like this you need to eliminate all possibilities before assuming theft eg human error, fat finger, computer error, bug, some sort of malfunction etc.,. It is only when you have eliminated all other possibilities that you get into the question of malice. PO investigators did not do that. They automatically assumed theft and did not look at what else might have been going wrong. So they were not in a position to say that the Horizon record was true because..... and then provide an explanation.
It was true because it was Horizon. Not it was true because they'd done these checks and these tests and they'd looked at this, that and the other and so on.
Hence the increasing hysteria when it was challenged and hence - too - the refusal to make proper disclosure because that disclosure would have shown that no proper investigations had been done and such audits as there were did show a host of problems. There was more than enough reasonable doubt to make even the thought of prosecution a non-starter.
It seems to me that if a computer system is showing you that something has gone adrift the best test of its accuracy is to find where the allegedly adrift item went and show that it is there. So, in these cases, if the SPOs were supposedly making unlawful transfers to themselves then those transfers really ought to be showing up in their bank accounts. If there is no equivalent entry to where the system says the money went then its time for a much closer look.
The quest to find the clitoris of the English electorate is unending.
He suddenly looks like he’s wearing a weird multicoloured toupee
Had the weird experience of thinking about you yesterday at a birthday lunch. I didn’t know your favourite knife-makers made knives for dining purposes but they were every bit as sharp as their fold up fun knives.
Lovely knives
Tho technically my favourite knives are these
Wolf and Dingo. Hand forged on Bodmin Moor. I have three. Superb
Only problem is they are 25 times the price of Opinel
I never had you down as a rustle something up oh where's the asafoetida kind of guy.
I have a mild knife obsession
Coincidentally I am reading a book about forensic psychiatry and “an obsession with knives” is one of the top 20 primary indicators of psychopathy
I also tick several other boxes. Odd sensation
Not an obsession, but I too love pocket knives and similar. I think it stems from a childhood spent camping.
I have a beautiful Laguiole corkscrew that I simply love to handle too.
My most evil knife is my sailors knife, designed for cutting ropes in an emergency, which I keep on a cord in my buoyancy aid.
Must be a bit alarming for your patients.
I'm something of a fan.
Opinel knives are beautifully sharpenable. I have one as my backup "take to restaurants in case their steak knives are blunt" pocket knife.
More worringly for monoglot British they have one called a "Couteau d'Office", which sounds like something needed by Miss Moneypenny for controlling 007 and to obtain sweetbread-slices for the lunchtime sandwiches.
You are presumably aware that having a knife or sharpened implement with a blade of more than 3 inches in a public place without lawful authoritiy is an offence under s 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988? I really wouldn't carry a blade like that around with you.
As long as Matt is tucking it into his hose he's all good.
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
I sometimes think Starmer is in danger of trying too hard.
The main point of this is to make it clear that Corbynism is dead. He just can't emphasise that too often, and it has got him consistent 20 point poll leads. So expect such stunts to continue.
Well, all it’s doing for me is to make me look even more carefully at Davey and his team.
If you’re in a Lib Dem Tory marginal, good. And you’re in Chelmsford I think? In which case go for it.
Completely snowed in now. Cannot open front door. Managed to open back door and collect wood for fire. It is quite beautiful outside. There is a magical stillness in a snow covered landscape.
Fortunately the main road nearby seems to have been cleared. So at least we can walk to the town, even it will take an hour or so.
1. Scotland does not have the same rebuttable presumption that computer evidence is reliable unless the defendant proves otherwise. 2. Scottish prosecutors had doubts about Horizon evidence and did not therefore prosecute. 3. The Post Office in Scotland could not run its own prosecutions so there was some independent review - and attempt to comply with the rules - of the type so dismally lacking in England & Wales.
Bluntly the PO was not able to subvert the Scottish criminal justice system in the way that it did elsewhere. Though the evidence in recent days suggests that the PO did try to by trying to bully Scottish prosecutors.
It makes Ministers' refusal to look again at the computer evidence presumption even more unconscionable than it is.
Many thanks - I'd missed it. I'd been wondering what the situation was up here. Were there really no prosecutions in Scotland?
Presumably the PF and Crown Office might have had their suspicions - but without looking into it in detail they couldn't be sure. And it would be unfair to expect them to spend the time to do so (which they couldn't, without a case, anyway, which meant a formal complaint from the PO) or to go public - unless, that was, there was an actual case in Scotland and expert witnesses could go to town on the prosecution evidence and the whole laundry-basket could be emptied out in court.
I do wonder however how many Scottish subPMs had to pay the losses the system reportedly magicked out of thin air, and lost their livelihoods on the quiet, even if they did not go to court.
I'm now beginning to wonder just why at least one supermarket I know closed its subPO.
I don't know the answer to your first question. The key point is that Scots law required corroboration and there was no such evidence.
But you make an important point which is often overlooked: many SPMs were pursued for the money but not prosecuted. So the injustice goes wider than the prosecutions - all the debt recovery proceedings are also fundamentally flawed. And all the monies SPMs paid out of their own pockets to resolve discrepancies were obtained under false pretences.
Basically nothing the PO legal department did in relation to the SPM - whether civil or criminal - from 2000 onwards - can be relied on.
I wouldn't rely on anything they say or do now, frankly, given the ongoing disclosure failings. The entire legal and investigative function at the PO is discredited.
One of the PO investigation managers who recently gave evidence is now an internal investigator at Sellafield, which is a tad worrying. She boasts about her time at the PO on her LinkedIn page which shows an alarming lack of awareness.
The position in Scotland is not quite as different as is being portrayed. The relevant provision is paragraph 4 of schedule 8 of the Criminal Procedure (S) Act 1995 which provides:
"Unless the court otherwise directs, a document may in any criminal proceedings be taken to be a document kept by a business or undertaking or by or on behalf of the holder of a paid or unpaid office if it is certified as such by a docquet in the prescribed form and purporting to be authenticated, in such manner as may be prescribed— (a) by a person authorised to authenticate such a docquet on behalf of the business or undertaking by which; or (b) by, or by a person authorised to authenticate such a docquet on behalf of, the office-holder by whom, the document was kept."
This is know as the business records exception in relation to hearsay. If the holder of the records confirms that they are the records of the business with the appropriate certificate then those records are deemed to be accurate and true records unless the contrary is shown. So if the likes of the hapless Mr Singh had certified the Horizon records for a prosecution in Scotland that would have created a similar position to that in England and Wales.
The prosecution, however, would still be in the hands of the COPFS and not in the hands of the PO itself so it would have been independently assessed.
The requirement for corroboration of the records would normally be met by someone speaking to the records which showed the alleged deficiency. The court would normally be looking for someone who had carried out an investigation or audit which vouched the shortfall.
I am not aware of prosecutions in Scotland (as opposed to civil claims) but it seems very unlikely that there were not any. If Procurators fiscal were unwilling to proceed on the basis of the Horizon evidence as early as 2012 then I think that their good sense and judgment is to be commended.
Thank you.
The problem was that the PO did not actually carry out any investigations into what was causing the discrepancies and alleged shortfalls. They simply accepted what Horizon was telling them. So they would have had difficulty finding someone to say they'd done an audit which showed the shortfall. The hapless Mr Singh's evidence was that only Fujitsu could explain how Horizon worked.
The real problem seems to me to be this one: when you are faced with a discrepancy like this you need to eliminate all possibilities before assuming theft eg human error, fat finger, computer error, bug, some sort of malfunction etc.,. It is only when you have eliminated all other possibilities that you get into the question of malice. PO investigators did not do that. They automatically assumed theft and did not look at what else might have been going wrong. So they were not in a position to say that the Horizon record was true because..... and then provide an explanation.
It was true because it was Horizon. Not it was true because they'd done these checks and these tests and they'd looked at this, that and the other and so on.
Hence the increasing hysteria when it was challenged and hence - too - the refusal to make proper disclosure because that disclosure would have shown that no proper investigations had been done and such audits as there were did show a host of problems. There was more than enough reasonable doubt to make even the thought of prosecution a non-starter.
People tend to think that other people act and think like themselves. In which case, Post Office managers would tend to assume that sub-postmasters were incompetent liars with amnesia, like themselves.
I suspect Starmer's praise of Thatcher for bringing about "meaningful change" is designed to contrast her (for Telegraph readers particularly) with the current PM, who has no plan to bring about any significant change and is left with detritus such as clamping down on small boats and smoking. As long as he doesn't sink to praising Truss or Johnson, I can live with it.
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
I sometimes think Starmer is in danger of trying too hard.
The main point of this is to make it clear that Corbynism is dead. He just can't emphasise that too often, and it has got him consistent 20 point poll leads. So expect such stunts to continue.
Well, all it’s doing for me is to make me look even more carefully at Davey and his team.
If you’re in a Lib Dem Tory marginal, good. And you’re in Chelmsford I think? In which case go for it.
Completely snowed in now. Cannot open front door. Managed to open back door and collect wood for fire. It is quite beautiful outside. There is a magical stillness in a snow covered landscape.
Fortunately the main road nearby seems to have been cleared. So at least we can walk to the town, even it will take an hour or so.
1. Scotland does not have the same rebuttable presumption that computer evidence is reliable unless the defendant proves otherwise. 2. Scottish prosecutors had doubts about Horizon evidence and did not therefore prosecute. 3. The Post Office in Scotland could not run its own prosecutions so there was some independent review - and attempt to comply with the rules - of the type so dismally lacking in England & Wales.
Bluntly the PO was not able to subvert the Scottish criminal justice system in the way that it did elsewhere. Though the evidence in recent days suggests that the PO did try to by trying to bully Scottish prosecutors.
It makes Ministers' refusal to look again at the computer evidence presumption even more unconscionable than it is.
Many thanks - I'd missed it. I'd been wondering what the situation was up here. Were there really no prosecutions in Scotland?
Presumably the PF and Crown Office might have had their suspicions - but without looking into it in detail they couldn't be sure. And it would be unfair to expect them to spend the time to do so (which they couldn't, without a case, anyway, which meant a formal complaint from the PO) or to go public - unless, that was, there was an actual case in Scotland and expert witnesses could go to town on the prosecution evidence and the whole laundry-basket could be emptied out in court.
I do wonder however how many Scottish subPMs had to pay the losses the system reportedly magicked out of thin air, and lost their livelihoods on the quiet, even if they did not go to court.
I'm now beginning to wonder just why at least one supermarket I know closed its subPO.
I don't know the answer to your first question. The key point is that Scots law required corroboration and there was no such evidence.
But you make an important point which is often overlooked: many SPMs were pursued for the money but not prosecuted. So the injustice goes wider than the prosecutions - all the debt recovery proceedings are also fundamentally flawed. And all the monies SPMs paid out of their own pockets to resolve discrepancies were obtained under false pretences.
Basically nothing the PO legal department did in relation to the SPM - whether civil or criminal - from 2000 onwards - can be relied on.
I wouldn't rely on anything they say or do now, frankly, given the ongoing disclosure failings. The entire legal and investigative function at the PO is discredited.
One of the PO investigation managers who recently gave evidence is now an internal investigator at Sellafield, which is a tad worrying. She boasts about her time at the PO on her LinkedIn page which shows an alarming lack of awareness.
The position in Scotland is not quite as different as is being portrayed. The relevant provision is paragraph 4 of schedule 8 of the Criminal Procedure (S) Act 1995 which provides:
"Unless the court otherwise directs, a document may in any criminal proceedings be taken to be a document kept by a business or undertaking or by or on behalf of the holder of a paid or unpaid office if it is certified as such by a docquet in the prescribed form and purporting to be authenticated, in such manner as may be prescribed— (a) by a person authorised to authenticate such a docquet on behalf of the business or undertaking by which; or (b) by, or by a person authorised to authenticate such a docquet on behalf of, the office-holder by whom, the document was kept."
This is know as the business records exception in relation to hearsay. If the holder of the records confirms that they are the records of the business with the appropriate certificate then those records are deemed to be accurate and true records unless the contrary is shown. So if the likes of the hapless Mr Singh had certified the Horizon records for a prosecution in Scotland that would have created a similar position to that in England and Wales.
The prosecution, however, would still be in the hands of the COPFS and not in the hands of the PO itself so it would have been independently assessed.
The requirement for corroboration of the records would normally be met by someone speaking to the records which showed the alleged deficiency. The court would normally be looking for someone who had carried out an investigation or audit which vouched the shortfall.
I am not aware of prosecutions in Scotland (as opposed to civil claims) but it seems very unlikely that there were not any. If Procurators fiscal were unwilling to proceed on the basis of the Horizon evidence as early as 2012 then I think that their good sense and judgment is to be commended.
Thank you.
The problem was that the PO did not actually carry out any investigations into what was causing the discrepancies and alleged shortfalls. They simply accepted what Horizon was telling them. So they would have had difficulty finding someone to say they'd done an audit which showed the shortfall. The hapless Mr Singh's evidence was that only Fujitsu could explain how Horizon worked.
The real problem seems to me to be this one: when you are faced with a discrepancy like this you need to eliminate all possibilities before assuming theft eg human error, fat finger, computer error, bug, some sort of malfunction etc.,. It is only when you have eliminated all other possibilities that you get into the question of malice. PO investigators did not do that. They automatically assumed theft and did not look at what else might have been going wrong. So they were not in a position to say that the Horizon record was true because..... and then provide an explanation.
It was true because it was Horizon. Not it was true because they'd done these checks and these tests and they'd looked at this, that and the other and so on.
Hence the increasing hysteria when it was challenged and hence - too - the refusal to make proper disclosure because that disclosure would have shown that no proper investigations had been done and such audits as there were did show a host of problems. There was more than enough reasonable doubt to make even the thought of prosecution a non-starter.
It seems to me that if a computer system is showing you that something has gone adrift the best test of its accuracy is to find where the allegedly adrift item went and show that it is there. So, in these cases, if the SPOs were supposedly making unlawful transfers to themselves then those transfers really ought to be showing up in their bank accounts. If there is no equivalent entry to where the system says the money went then its time for a much closer look.
The ass’umption was, I believe, that cash was being stolen from the tills. The absence of further evidence was evidence of the fiendish cunning of the thieving POs.
Comments
And should not political heads of state / government have the security and flexibility of their own aircraft? It's nonsense hairshirting to expect them to fly scheduled. What if they have to take a time-critical phone call? Or if they need to change their destination mid-flight? Emergencies happen. Yes, these things can be deputised but it's introducing unnecessary risk into the system for what is - in the scheme of things - a trivial carbon output, whatever the optics.
"Unless the court otherwise directs, a document may in any criminal proceedings be taken to be a document kept by a business or undertaking or by or on behalf of the holder of a paid or unpaid office if it is certified as such by a docquet in the prescribed form and purporting to be authenticated, in such manner as may be prescribed—
(a) by a person authorised to authenticate such a docquet on behalf of the business or undertaking by which; or
(b) by, or by a person authorised to authenticate such a docquet on behalf of, the office-holder by whom,
the document was kept."
This is know as the business records exception in relation to hearsay. If the holder of the records confirms that they are the records of the business with the appropriate certificate then those records are deemed to be accurate and true records unless the contrary is shown. So if the likes of the hapless Mr Singh had certified the Horizon records for a prosecution in Scotland that would have created a similar position to that in England and Wales.
The prosecution, however, would still be in the hands of the COPFS and not in the hands of the PO itself so it would have been independently assessed.
The requirement for corroboration of the records would normally be met by someone speaking to the records which showed the alleged deficiency. The court would normally be looking for someone who had carried out an investigation or audit which vouched the shortfall.
I am not aware of prosecutions in Scotland (as opposed to civil claims) but it seems very unlikely that there were not any. If Procurators fiscal were unwilling to proceed on the basis of the Horizon evidence as early as 2012 then I think that their good sense and judgment is to be commended.
Anyone remember Zoom ‘parties’? Even the thought makes me shudder.
Opinel knives are beautifully sharpenable. I have one as my backup "take to restaurants in case their steak knives are blunt" pocket knife.
More worringly for monoglot British they have one called a "Couteau d'Office", which sounds like something needed by Miss Moneypenny for controlling 007 and to obtain sweetbread-slices for the lunchtime sandwiches.
"https://www.knivesandtools.co.uk/en/pt/-opinel-office-knives-set-of-2-n-102-carbon-steel
Nice idea but the trouble was twofold: they tended to choose schmaltzy pop-classic arrangements rather than good hard core choral music, and everyone felt the need to look very earnest and caring on the video.
Talking of which, remember that virtual recording of Imagine, by some B listers?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_(Gal_Gadot_video)
Trump's claim was that civil lawsuits for damages due to actions relating to the Jan 6 insurrection should be struck out because he was acting in his official capacity as President.
This is in the lawsuit by various Members of Congress and staff, and Police Officers, for damages, and the ruling is in the DC Federal Appeals Court.
If I understand the range of animals in the US Legal Bodies Zoo correctly, the next appeal us to the US Supreme Court, as it is a Federal Case.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/dc-appeals-court-rules-trump-sued-inciting-jan/story?id=105307591
Groups like pb are valuable, of course, but we have to imagine what posters look like. On Zoom we can see.
"Couples' garden ornament turned out to be a live bomb."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67602627
https://x.com/lizwebstersbf/status/1731256798118568173?s=46
All this presents the average Labour supporter with a dilemma. Are they:
a. Truly reformed characters who are embracing Brexit and Thatcher (not great); or
b. Lying to get into power (also not great)?
My fear is it started as b but as is so often the case, they’re starting to believe their own lies.
But compared to getting up at stupid o'clock and getting back home from London in the early hours because the ECML is in chaos, give me Teams any day.
(Skinning and quartering game birds in case anyone thinks it is something more sinister.)
I might now, of course.
Incidentally, and for the avoidance of doubt, I look nothing like my avatar!
He also praises Atlee and Blair, and in the past has been glowing about Harold Wilson.
First, a clue is in the numbers above. Yes, she is the only one (slightly) positive on net ratings but there are a large number who do not have an opinion. Given how long she has been campaigning, you would have thought she would be higher which suggests a problem cutting through (DeSantis has more unfavourable ratings but approaching 20% more people do have a view of him - positive or negative - suggesting this is not just a Not Trump factor). That allows the Ds to set a very negative portrait if she is the R candidate (BTW, if you want to go on net ratings, Hakeem Jeffries should be in the frame to replace Biden).
Second, and more importantly, it’s not recognising how the GOP has changed. It’s a lot more working-class, populist orientated party with a growing distrust of business. Haley doesn’t cut the mustard for these people. Trump does (and you can argue if this is justified) but it is why he has the support he does and why he is a symptom not a cause. If Haley was the candidate - regardless of whether Trump ran as an Independent - there is a good case for arguing she wouldn’t win, part because of the enthusiasm gap and part because such a move would probably trigger a counter move on the D side to push out Biden (my guess is this is one scenario where they the Ds would push Harris to the top ticket and have this as ‘woman v woman’ with Harris’ Black heritage being used to mobilise the base).
It’s not a coincidence Haley is being pushed as the alternative to Trump at the same time the polls for Biden in a
Biden v Trump rematch have got worse. Not long ago, we were told that
Trump was the candidate the Ds
wanted most. Now the fear is Trump may get in again hence the switch has gone from all in on the criminal trials (which you may have noticed has got far less attention in the centre left / left press in recent weeks) and more to finding a Republican alternative.
Renault, in the same boat as BL were nationalised, recovered and refloated. What was wrong with that? Contrary to EU intervention rules, Italy propped up steelmaking and shipbuilding and they are in a less unhealthy state than our industrial base.
Unions needed their wings clipping after three decades of industrial strife, but we are now at a point where the current Government plans to reduce further the notion of the right to withdraw labour.
Pledging the Nationalisation of utilities/ruling out nationalisation of utilities,
Accepting referendum/calling for people’s vote, Vegetarian on moral grounds/eating fish,
Calling himself a Republican/accepting a knighthood
Calling Corbyn a friend/expelling him from party
Campaigning as a left winger/embracing Thatcher
Ruling out giving interviews to the Sun/Writing for The Sun
etc etc are a bit like Boris writing two letters before going for Leave
(From here, not Chelmsford)
And from earlier in the thread:
Baileys with Haley
Hearach with Kamala (Distilled on Harris!)
I have the 8 with the whistle. The 12 is interesting given the spread of Lyme's but the tick card by lifesystems is a much better device IMO.
Still, you know, it's irritating but it comes with the territory and it just means we on the left have to live to a higher set of standards. Which most days we do.
It's almost a law of nature that parties on the up expand into opposition territory- Boris did it in 2019.
It's what Starmer does with all those votes that will be interesting; Thatcher (for example) in power was rather different to campaigning Thatcher.
O Thank you.
The problem was that the PO did not actually carry out any investigations into what was causing the discrepancies and alleged shortfalls. They simply accepted what Horizon was telling them. So they would have had difficulty finding someone to say they'd done an audit which showed the shortfall. The hapless Mr Singh's evidence was that only Fujitsu could explain how Horizon worked.
The real problem seems to me to be this one: when you are faced with a discrepancy like this you need to eliminate all possibilities before assuming theft eg human error, fat finger, computer error, bug, some sort of malfunction etc.,. It is only when you have eliminated all other possibilities that you get into the question of malice. PO investigators did not do that. They automatically assumed theft and did not look at what else might have been going wrong. So they were not in a position to say that the Horizon record was true because..... and then provide an explanation.
It was true because it was Horizon. Not it was true because they'd done these checks and these tests and they'd looked at this, that and the other and so on.
Hence the increasing hysteria when it was challenged and hence - too - the refusal to make proper disclosure because that disclosure would have shown that no proper investigations had been done and such audits as there were did show a host of problems. There was more than enough reasonable doubt to make even the thought of prosecution a non-starter.
https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/keir-starmer-broken-promises-tuition-fees-nationalisation-u-turn/
Insisting everyone does COP summits by zoom is the ultimate in counter-productive virtue signalling.
Though it's an inaccurate characterisation of her anyway.
Renault is highly profitable, but it did what was resisted at BL. Slashing production, closing factories, and focusing on high value products.
Italy has a bigger manufacturing sector than we have, but its overall economic performance has been much worse then the UK’s, over 25 years.
Cop28 president says there is ‘no science’ behind demands for phase-out of fossil fuels
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/03/back-into-caves-cop28-president-dismisses-phase-out-of-fossil-fuels
Its theme is the petro states spinning that they should carry on as normal.
They do so because it shows a certain generosity and open-mindedness to opponents you disagree with, and because she's now so far in the past it doesn't undermine your pitch that the Tories are rubbish today. Plus it shows they're not in the bit of the Labour party that eternally wants to cosplay the 1980s again in the hope there's a different result this time. Finally, it's quite useful if you want to sound a bit radical and someone who will change things but still reassure Tory switchers.
2. Pub afterwards
That's it.
Personally, I'd say that fees are much less an issue than maintenance funding while students are studying, but that's another matter.
Politicians change their views to grope towards what the electorate wants. That's not news. Thatcher did it (she was happy enough to be in Heath's cabinet), Blair did it (contrast '83 and '97), Johnson did it.
The advantage Starmer has, the only reason he's on track for the Premiership, is how comprehensively the Conservative class of 2019 have fouled the nest. And that was their choice. Had Boris not repeatedly doubled down on a pathetic lie, he'd probably still be there.
Someone could do a PhD on this.
Oh dear
Yes, if the witch floats…