The LDs would do better at the election with Daisy Cooper as leader – politicalbetting.com

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

The Mail's review was quite snooty that not enough credit had been given to, er, The Daily Mail. But they did get a mention in e.4. If I was Computer Weekly I'd be more aggrieved, given their consistent championing of this cause. But I'm sure they are delighted that it has been brought to a wider public consciousness.

Yes. Proper journalists on computer weekly it seems: well done them

There are some quiet heroes besides Alan Bates. But an awful lot of villains

I remember saying a year ago, as I was yawning (again, and wrongly) over the tediousness of this scandal, that what it needed was a STORY - a few human examples to make it vivid and emotional. That’s exactly what ITV did: well done them, too

It is pleasing that homemade TV drama can still do this - change an entire national conversation and for a righteous cause

Some other Pb-er noted that the scriptwriter used every single cliche in the book - from the pints at the pub table to the lovable cake making lady to the absurdly pretty house in snowdonia - but who cares. It really worked

Yes, but the story was always there. The original Computer Weekly article - which they held off publishing for a year for fear of the consequences - contained six case studies of individuals who had, at that stage, suffered hugely, including bankruptcy and prison. The interesting question is why a campaign group and a website and a radio series and magazine coverage and a book and a parliamentary hearing all failed to attract the scale of public attention that this clearly deserved. Usually we rely on the Guardian to champion such stuff, but even they don't appear to have twigged.

Sadly, I do suspect that the fact that all three parties have left fingerprints at the crime scene is a much bigger part of the explanation than we would like to admit. We'd like to think that there are lots of politicians motivated to champion injustice for moral, altruistic reasons - whereas the truth is that almost all of them have a filter that asks "what's in it for me?" and "what's in it for my party?".

That Arbuthnot was obscure, apparently unambitious, and on his way out (heading for the Lords, possibly already on that promise) as far as active party politics is concerned, is surely pertinent.

viewcode said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Can somebody explain to me what NU10K’rs are?

Thanx.

A PBer (I think it's @Malmesbury: could be @JosiasJessop) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.

I think he's right, btw

Were you asking for the names of specific people?

No, that will do thank you.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Can somebody explain to me what NU10K’rs are?

Thanx.

A @Malmesbury coinage (although perhaps they picked it up elsewhere?)

https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4647580#Comment_4647580

New Upper 10,000 refers to the old observation that countries were run by the aristocracies and their moderately distant relations.

The NU10K is a bit more diverse, but have adopted the sense of entitlement, arrogance, immunity from consequences* and general fuckwittery associated with the Old Upper 10,000.

A lot of John Wilkes journalism was about the OU10K

*An important part of the No Consequences thing is ensuring that No Consequences occur for other NU10Kers.

Note the importance of no consequences for other NU10k club members. You scratch their back, they’ll scratch yours if that time ever comes.

Who is in the NU10k club? All sorts of people. But generally, if you can leave your current job & expect to be parachuted into a nice sinecure as the Director of a non-profit org then you’re probably in the club. Note that the club is apolitical - party affiliation is not in and of itself relevant to whether you’re in the club or not. Some MPs are in the club whilst others are not, probably because they committed the cardinal sin of criticising club members at some point.

There’s probably a universal truth of human relations that an inchoate organisation like this forms in any country - with ill defined boundaries, no membership lists & no written rules. Somehow the members all know the rules even if they’re never quite sure whether they’re in the club or not.

TOPPING said:

Of course the public, fickle little darlings as we know us to be, will cry blue murder when someone points out (actually Arbuthnot's TV character did just this) that "the government/post office paying" means we the taxpayer paying hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation.

Although I would (together with everyone else) be interested to know "where the money went".

If Sunak doesn’t dole out huge comedy cheques with generous compensation for those affected live on tv just before the GE, he doesn’t deserve to be PM

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

The ITV drama had to use just about exactly her own words gathered from transcripts and interviews because the threat of legal action was too high. It is a testament to Lia Williams' portrayal that you should have come out with that view of her.

Actually I thought they gave the two women a teensy bit of sympathy - Vennells looking mortified in church, and van den Boegard (sp) quietly sobbing at her desk.

In other news, Reform UK have selected someone certifiably bonkers for the new Bicester & Woodstock constituency:

"Augustine Chukwuma Obodo Snr is the UK leader of Friends Of Trump UK & Commonwealth Affairs for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. He serves as an Advisory Board Member of Donald Trump for President, Inc, representing the Commonwealth Black Voices for President Donald J. Trump. Augustine founded the conservative advocacy group, Friends of Trump UK and Commonwealth Affairs, and has been its Group Chief Executive Officer since 2015."

https://augustineobodo.uk

(via https://twitter.com/OxfordClarion/status/1744294284801478789 )

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.

El_Capitano said:

TheValiant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Ed seems to get no coverage at all, which is OK for Starmer who wants to win by default and seems to operate on a basis that no coverage is better than any risky coverage, but for the Lib Dems they need to do something to get the oxygen of publicity.

Its not just that the Post Office scandal is bad for Ed, its that its the only thing most people will now associate with him as there's been a complete vacuum of coverage for anything else.

Replacing him with Daisy Cooper is a good idea. I don't know much about what if anything she stands for, but she's a fresh face and telegenic and doesn't look like an invisible sidekick to Starmer.

What have the Lib Dems got to lose?

As a LD supporter, I've sometimes wondered if Davey's association with the Conservatives via the Coalition could also weigh him down come GE day. It's a ready made goal for Labour. "Everyone hates the Tories" (again) and look, he was part of them for five years...........

I wonder what has happened to Layla Moran though. She was the bright young thing about three years ago, but I've heard nothing from her since.

(Then again, the LDs have been very starved of any publicity lately, excepting their by-election gains)

Davey shunted Layla Moran off to become spokesperson for Foreign Affairs. Shadow Foreign is a non-job even for the Official Opposition; for the LibDems it's invisible. It's a real shame because she was good, and very visible, as Education spokesperson. But clearly this was deliberate.

A British Palestinian Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs is quite a niche move at the moment, you’d think she’d be quite visible

noneoftheabove said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Andy_JS said:

There was this Panorama programme in 2015 but didn't get as much attention as it might have done.

"Trouble at Post Office - Panorama - 17th August 2015"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3by7G0VQ3A

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/p02z27ft

Another question about the Post Office scandal is whether there is a single MP, Minister or senior Civil Servant who does not read Private Eye? Or newspaper editor, come to that.

There was the article in Computer Weekly nearly fifteen years ago. There have been occasional articles in the serious papers and a lot more in Private Eye, as well as local paper coverage of many of the individual cases. Bates’s campaign has been going for twenty years and both he and many of the affected individuals have lobbied their own MPs throughout that entire period. A handful of those MPs have been raising the matter in parliament for more than ten years. Bates’s campaign has lobbied every junior minister responsible for the PO since New Labour days, but only one was interested enough to meet him personally. There’s been a Panorama documentary, a twenty-part radio series on R4, and items on other media including commercial radio. And there’s a book available in both hardback and paperback that tells the whole story. And internet sites from the campaign and others; even, late in the story, some items on PB. And the statutory inquiry has been up and running since last year.

Yet it’s taken a bit of telly drama on ITV over the holiday period to have everyone running about in apparent surprise and shock…..

Yes, Sunak was talking at the weekend like he'd only just heard of it. Despicable. I used to have quite a bit of time for him, but I now hope he gets shafted at the next election, as he deserves.

A clear winner of most disappointing PM of my lifetime. I had no positive expectations of Johnson or Truss, Brown and May probably performed to my lowish expectations, and quite liked Major, Blair and Cameron, of course they all got important things wrong too, but that's the job.

Sunak as Chancellor seemed like a competent manager and good communicator. As PM he is suddenly way out of his depth and makes error after error for seemingly no political or personal gain. Weird.

How quickly we forget that we were crying out for a boring, grey, technocrat after the Truss/BoJo years.

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

Arbuthnot expressed the hope in a recent radio interview that he hoped there would not be too much of an obsession with Vennells. There are plenty of others who need to be nailed too.

TOPPING said:

Of course the public, fickle little darlings as we know us to be, will cry blue murder when someone points out (actually Arbuthnot's TV character did just this) that "the government/post office paying" means we the taxpayer paying hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation.

Although I would (together with everyone else) be interested to know "where the money went".

We already know that it dropped into the Post Office's bottom line, resting in various suspense accounts meanwhile, and that the improvement in bottom line benefitted the government as sole owner and shareholder (mostly by reducing PO losses and hence the government subsidy). So there is a certain logic in the government paying it back.

On topic. Do the decent thing Davey, step aside as a point of honour now. It would do the LDs a world of good.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

viewcode said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Can somebody explain to me what NU10K’rs are?

Thanx.

A PBer (I think it's @Malmesbury: could be @JosiasJessop) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.

I think he's right, btw

Were you asking for the names of specific people?

I think it's more plausible that the state serves the interests of Tory party donors.

The same kind of people dominate public service, both direct and third sector. They did so under New Labour and before.

They are, nearly always, in the rich-but-profess-vague-do-goodery group. Which is not surprising, given their fondness for government money.

TOPPING said:

noneoftheabove said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Andy_JS said:

There was this Panorama programme in 2015 but didn't get as much attention as it might have done.

"Trouble at Post Office - Panorama - 17th August 2015"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3by7G0VQ3A

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/p02z27ft

Another question about the Post Office scandal is whether there is a single MP, Minister or senior Civil Servant who does not read Private Eye? Or newspaper editor, come to that.

There was the article in Computer Weekly nearly fifteen years ago. There have been occasional articles in the serious papers and a lot more in Private Eye, as well as local paper coverage of many of the individual cases. Bates’s campaign has been going for twenty years and both he and many of the affected individuals have lobbied their own MPs throughout that entire period. A handful of those MPs have been raising the matter in parliament for more than ten years. Bates’s campaign has lobbied every junior minister responsible for the PO since New Labour days, but only one was interested enough to meet him personally. There’s been a Panorama documentary, a twenty-part radio series on R4, and items on other media including commercial radio. And there’s a book available in both hardback and paperback that tells the whole story. And internet sites from the campaign and others; even, late in the story, some items on PB. And the statutory inquiry has been up and running since last year.

Yet it’s taken a bit of telly drama on ITV over the holiday period to have everyone running about in apparent surprise and shock…..

Yes, Sunak was talking at the weekend like he'd only just heard of it. Despicable. I used to have quite a bit of time for him, but I now hope he gets shafted at the next election, as he deserves.

A clear winner of most disappointing PM of my lifetime. I had no positive expectations of Johnson or Truss, Brown and May probably performed to my lowish expectations, and quite liked Major, Blair and Cameron, of course they all got important things wrong too, but that's the job.

Sunak as Chancellor seemed like a competent manager and good communicator. As PM he is suddenly way out of his depth and makes error after error for seemingly no political or personal gain. Weird.

How quickly we forget that we were crying out for a boring, grey, technocrat after the Truss/BoJo years.

Yes but a competent one......

El_Capitano said:

In other news, Reform UK have selected someone certifiably bonkers for the new Bicester & Woodstock constituency:

"Augustine Chukwuma Obodo Snr is the UK leader of Friends Of Trump UK & Commonwealth Affairs for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. He serves as an Advisory Board Member of Donald Trump for President, Inc, representing the Commonwealth Black Voices for President Donald J. Trump. Augustine founded the conservative advocacy group, Friends of Trump UK and Commonwealth Affairs, and has been its Group Chief Executive Officer since 2015."

https://augustineobodo.uk

(via https://twitter.com/OxfordClarion/status/1744294284801478789 )

Lol. I suspect his campaign in Bicester will take off like a lead balloon.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

I agree with this to an extent. She certainly has very serious questions to answer, but it is at least possible that she isn't Cruella Deville.

The death of Camila Batmanghelidjh the other day is a reminder of that. She was wickedness personified in the popular imagination at one time - corrupt, vain, and relaxed about child abuse in her organisation. A few years and some court cases later, and it turned out that she had her flaws as a charity CEO in terms of expanding too quickly and being insufficiently risk averse in financial planning. But the abuse and corruption stuff never really stacked up, and she turns out to have been an energetic and well-meaning person who made some serious but ultimately understandable errors.

Ok, but when Second Sight began to report its findings, she had a grade A opportunity to front up. She didn't.

She will have another belated opportunity when she appears before the Public Inquiry this year. It will be fascinating viewing.

I agree with Arbuthnot that she shouldn't be demonised. It isn't helpful, and there are plenty of others deserving of equal scrutiny, but she sure does have a lot of questions to answer.

HYUFD said:

TheValiant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Ed seems to get no coverage at all, which is OK for Starmer who wants to win by default and seems to operate on a basis that no coverage is better than any risky coverage, but for the Lib Dems they need to do something to get the oxygen of publicity.

Its not just that the Post Office scandal is bad for Ed, its that its the only thing most people will now associate with him as there's been a complete vacuum of coverage for anything else.

Replacing him with Daisy Cooper is a good idea. I don't know much about what if anything she stands for, but she's a fresh face and telegenic and doesn't look like an invisible sidekick to Starmer.

What have the Lib Dems got to lose?

As a LD supporter, I've sometimes wondered if Davey's association with the Conservatives via the Coalition could also weigh him down come GE day. It's a ready made goal for Labour. "Everyone hates the Tories" (again) and look, he was part of them for five years...........

I wonder what has happened to Layla Moran though. She was the bright young thing about three years ago, but I've heard nothing from her since.

(Then again, the LDs have been very starved of any publicity lately, excepting their by-election gains)

Given most of the voters and seats he is targeting voted for the Coalition parties in 2010 or 2015 I highly doubt it

Aren't the relevant voters the ones who voted in 2015 only? Those voting in 2010 didn't know they were voting for Coalition parties, and many were evidently very disappointed that it turned out as it did.

I do agree there was an element in 2010 of people saying to Lib Dem canvassers "I am absolutely delighted with the Coalition, so will be voting Conservative" and some of the Lib Dem target in 2024 will be people in Remain voting SE England who kind of get, whether explicitly or not, that was the wrong call in terms of the type of government they really wanted to get.

But that's quite a small part of what the Lib Dems need. Essentially, they need disillusioned Tories PLUS to unite anti-Conservatives behind them in target seats, and any reminder of the Coalition remains quite risky with the latter group (albeit I'd not overstate it - time is something of a healer and it's getting on for a decade now since the Coalition years).

Peter_the_Punter said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

Arbuthnot expressed the hope in a recent radio interview that he hoped there would not be too much of an obsession with Vennells. There are plenty of others who need to be nailed too.

That ship has sailed. Already more than a million have signed a petition for Vennells to lose her CBE.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/strip-paula-vennells-of-her-cbe

(And no, I don't know if they are real people.)

isam said:

El_Capitano said:

TheValiant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Ed seems to get no coverage at all, which is OK for Starmer who wants to win by default and seems to operate on a basis that no coverage is better than any risky coverage, but for the Lib Dems they need to do something to get the oxygen of publicity.

Its not just that the Post Office scandal is bad for Ed, its that its the only thing most people will now associate with him as there's been a complete vacuum of coverage for anything else.

Replacing him with Daisy Cooper is a good idea. I don't know much about what if anything she stands for, but she's a fresh face and telegenic and doesn't look like an invisible sidekick to Starmer.

What have the Lib Dems got to lose?

As a LD supporter, I've sometimes wondered if Davey's association with the Conservatives via the Coalition could also weigh him down come GE day. It's a ready made goal for Labour. "Everyone hates the Tories" (again) and look, he was part of them for five years...........

I wonder what has happened to Layla Moran though. She was the bright young thing about three years ago, but I've heard nothing from her since.

(Then again, the LDs have been very starved of any publicity lately, excepting their by-election gains)

Davey shunted Layla Moran off to become spokesperson for Foreign Affairs. Shadow Foreign is a non-job even for the Official Opposition; for the LibDems it's invisible. It's a real shame because she was good, and very visible, as Education spokesperson. But clearly this was deliberate.

A British Palestinian Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs is quite a niche move at the moment, you’d think she’d be quite visible

She was asked on the Good Morning TV sofa whether she or her family knew about the Hamas attacks before they happened, which attracted a fair it of publicity.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

Arbuthnot expressed the hope in a recent radio interview that he hoped there would not be too much of an obsession with Vennells. There are plenty of others who need to be nailed too.

The public now wants someone on the village green that they can throw fruit and veg at, more than they want to know what actually happened.

isam said:

TOPPING said:

Of course the public, fickle little darlings as we know us to be, will cry blue murder when someone points out (actually Arbuthnot's TV character did just this) that "the government/post office paying" means we the taxpayer paying hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation.

Although I would (together with everyone else) be interested to know "where the money went".

If Sunak doesn’t dole out huge comedy cheques with generous compensation for those affected live on tv just before the GE, he doesn’t deserve to be PM

Unless those cheques are from Fujitsu’s bank account he better not be

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

The Mail's review was quite snooty that not enough credit had been given to, er, The Daily Mail. But they did get a mention in e.4. If I was Computer Weekly I'd be more aggrieved, given their consistent championing of this cause. But I'm sure they are delighted that it has been brought to a wider public consciousness.

Yes. Proper journalists on computer weekly it seems: well done them

There are some quiet heroes besides Alan Bates. But an awful lot of villains

I remember saying a year ago, as I was yawning (again, and wrongly) over the tediousness of this scandal, that what it needed was a STORY - a few human examples to make it vivid and emotional. That’s exactly what ITV did: well done them, too

It is pleasing that homemade TV drama can still do this - change an entire national conversation and for a righteous cause

Some other Pb-er noted that the scriptwriter used every single cliche in the book - from the pints at the pub table to the lovable cake making lady to the absurdly pretty house in snowdonia - but who cares. It really worked

Yes, but the story was always there. The original Computer Weekly article - which they held off publishing for a year for fear of the consequences - contained six case studies of individuals who had, at that stage, suffered hugely, including bankruptcy and prison. The interesting question is why a campaign group and a website and a radio series and magazine coverage and a book and a parliamentary hearing all failed to attract the scale of public attention that this clearly deserved. Usually we rely on the Guardian to champion such stuff, but even they don't appear to have twigged.

Sadly, I do suspect that the fact that all three parties have left fingerprints at the crime scene is a much bigger part of the explanation than we would like to admit. We'd like to think that there are lots of politicians motivated to champion injustice for moral, altruistic reasons - whereas the truth is that almost all of them have a filter that asks "what's in it for me?" and "what's in it for my party?".

That Arbuthnot was obscure, apparently unambitious, and on his way out (heading for the Lords, possibly already on that promise) as far as active party politics is concerned, is surely pertinent.

Why do you think no one has REALLY bothered to find out where Covid came from? Put it differently, why have there been dozens of scientific papers all trying - and lamentably failing - to prove it came from the market, but barely any papers following the rather more obvious trail to the dodgy, insecure, Covid-virus-making bat lab 300 yards from the market?

Because all the main players have fingerprints at the scene. It was a Chinese lab with Chinese scientists, in China. But they were funded by American taxpayers, via Fauci and the NIH. And top European scientists and journals - from Farrar and the Lancet down, were all linked in to the research; and all of virology, indeed all of science, is endangered by this truth

We all know it came from the lab, it will take someone brave and independent to finally and definitively point out the bleedin’ obvious

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

TheValiant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Ed seems to get no coverage at all, which is OK for Starmer who wants to win by default and seems to operate on a basis that no coverage is better than any risky coverage, but for the Lib Dems they need to do something to get the oxygen of publicity.

Its not just that the Post Office scandal is bad for Ed, its that its the only thing most people will now associate with him as there's been a complete vacuum of coverage for anything else.

Replacing him with Daisy Cooper is a good idea. I don't know much about what if anything she stands for, but she's a fresh face and telegenic and doesn't look like an invisible sidekick to Starmer.

What have the Lib Dems got to lose?

As a LD supporter, I've sometimes wondered if Davey's association with the Conservatives via the Coalition could also weigh him down come GE day. It's a ready made goal for Labour. "Everyone hates the Tories" (again) and look, he was part of them for five years...........

I wonder what has happened to Layla Moran though. She was the bright young thing about three years ago, but I've heard nothing from her since.

(Then again, the LDs have been very starved of any publicity lately, excepting their by-election gains)

Given most of the voters and seats he is targeting voted for the Coalition parties in 2010 or 2015 I highly doubt it

Aren't the relevant voters the ones who voted in 2015 only? Those voting in 2010 didn't know they were voting for Coalition parties, and many were evidently very disappointed that it turned out as it did.

I do agree there was an element in 2010 of people saying to Lib Dem canvassers "I am absolutely delighted with the Coalition, so will be voting Conservative" and some of the Lib Dem target in 2024 will be people in Remain voting SE England who kind of get, whether explicitly or not, that was the wrong call in terms of the type of government they really wanted to get.

But that's quite a small part of what the Lib Dems need. Essentially, they need disillusioned Tories PLUS to unite anti-Conservatives behind them in target seats, and any reminder of the Coalition remains quite risky with the latter group (albeit I'd not overstate it - time is something of a healer and it's getting on for a decade now since the Coalition years).

Anti Conservatives will be mostly voting Labour, the only reason they would vote LD is that Labour stands no chance of winning in their seat.

Which applies to almost all the top 50 LD target seats, so they will likely tactically vote LD anyway whoever is LD leader if they live in those seats

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.

But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs

OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.

Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.

1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation
2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity
3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs
4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.

The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.

A great article on how tactical voting may be the difference between a small(ish) Labour win and a l landslide majority

https://swingometer.substack.com/p/what-would-a-really-big-labour-win

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

TheValiant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Ed seems to get no coverage at all, which is OK for Starmer who wants to win by default and seems to operate on a basis that no coverage is better than any risky coverage, but for the Lib Dems they need to do something to get the oxygen of publicity.

Its not just that the Post Office scandal is bad for Ed, its that its the only thing most people will now associate with him as there's been a complete vacuum of coverage for anything else.

Replacing him with Daisy Cooper is a good idea. I don't know much about what if anything she stands for, but she's a fresh face and telegenic and doesn't look like an invisible sidekick to Starmer.

What have the Lib Dems got to lose?

As a LD supporter, I've sometimes wondered if Davey's association with the Conservatives via the Coalition could also weigh him down come GE day. It's a ready made goal for Labour. "Everyone hates the Tories" (again) and look, he was part of them for five years...........

I wonder what has happened to Layla Moran though. She was the bright young thing about three years ago, but I've heard nothing from her since.

(Then again, the LDs have been very starved of any publicity lately, excepting their by-election gains)

Given most of the voters and seats he is targeting voted for the Coalition parties in 2010 or 2015 I highly doubt it

Aren't the relevant voters the ones who voted in 2015 only? Those voting in 2010 didn't know they were voting for Coalition parties, and many were evidently very disappointed that it turned out as it did.

I do agree there was an element in 2010 of people saying to Lib Dem canvassers "I am absolutely delighted with the Coalition, so will be voting Conservative" and some of the Lib Dem target in 2024 will be people in Remain voting SE England who kind of get, whether explicitly or not, that was the wrong call in terms of the type of government they really wanted to get.

But that's quite a small part of what the Lib Dems need. Essentially, they need disillusioned Tories PLUS to unite anti-Conservatives behind them in target seats, and any reminder of the Coalition remains quite risky with the latter group (albeit I'd not overstate it - time is something of a healer and it's getting on for a decade now since the Coalition years).

The real dilemma the LDs have is that to build national vote share they need to take some distinctive, even radical positions on national issues that get them noticed, whereas to hold the tiny handful of seats they have won in a voting system that is hugely difficult for them, they need to win over and maintain a coalition of voters from the other parties, heavily relying upon personal activity and tactical voting rather than political policy, and those MPs walk on ice, concerned to avoid doing anything that upsets significant numbers of their vote. They have the additional problem that whereas the seats they held when I was young included areas where they could rely on a traditional liberal party core vote (celtic fringe, etc), they now represent mostly relatively prosperous areas of educated middle class voters, and they often have to tiptoe around those voters' self-interest.

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

MoonRabbit said:

MarqueeMark said:

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

rcs1000 said:

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

These Golden Globes are a dogs dinner. The host had the tone all wrong.

Liking Anatomy of a Fall and Beef being recognised. 👍🏻👍🏻
Disliking Oppenheimer getting a round one for Direction. 👎
I’m not much a fan of Bear or Crown either 👎👎

Havn’t seen Poor Things so can’t comment on that one, but it’s supposed to be bonkers and surprising. Don’t like Emma Stone at all but at least she beat the drivel that was Barbie

Are you Ben Shapiro?

Clearly not as I had to Google who he is.

“The conservative commentator set fire to two Barbie dolls in a scathing 43-minute video review of the film.”

It’s not that it tried to turn woke into an art form, though it did, it’s that it doesn’t make sense and is not even entertaining.

How can you live over there, the USA is nuts.

Ugh. Gongs for Barbie.
This charade is nothing more than a Master Plumber annual dinner, handing out gongs for any old pump installation. What an utter waste of time.

Barbie got bums on seats in cinemas - regardless of the merits of the movie, it stopped the rot in cinema-going. So it was always going to be looked upon kindly.

No Marky - nobody actually likes the Barbie Movie, regardless if they felt oddly compelled to check what the fuss is all about. Film industry Gongs should give a recognition to Art, not marketing.

What do you think caused the mass lying to review sites? Why couldn't people just admit they hated the movie?

I rated Barbie 4.5 on Letterboxd, the overall mean score is 3.9.

My ★★★★½ review of Barbie on Letterboxd https://boxd.it/4J8OqB

You have no concept how your Shareprice has crashed in my eyes. 😔

“the plot skipped past a number of gaping plot holes with charm and a wink.” 🤷‍♀️

To address head on Roberts “What do you think caused the mass lying to review sites?” Simples - it’s the same thing which put Donald Trump in the Whitehouse. Just like Barbie the Movie, people liked the concept, or promise, of Trump delivering a fresh new thing, and ignored the fact it was actually such a dogs dinner it didn’t deliver on that promise, or deliver anything at all really.

If you wish to understand the ongoing appeal of Trump to the MAGA crowd, just read Foxy’s Barbie review today.
The plot had a number of gaping plot holes, but I liked the charm with which it “skipped” past them. WTF!

There won’t be a sequel.

Stocky said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.

Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.

1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation
2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity
3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs
4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.

The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.

Are you complaining that an excellent TV drama has got the country engaged in a terrible injustice that was hitherto ignored? What’s your answer: force everyone to listen to podcasts about post offices?

Stop being ridiculous. This is how the world works: well told, moving human stories get attention, minutiae about software glitches in little shops does not

However I do agree with your point (3). Where the heck did all that money go? Lawyers, yet again?

Leon said:

Stocky said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.

Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.

1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation
2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity
3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs
4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.

The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.

Are you complaining that an excellent TV drama has got the country engaged in a terrible injustice that was hitherto ignored? What’s your answer: force everyone to listen to podcasts about post offices?

Stop being ridiculous. This is how the world works: well told, moving human stories get attention, minutiae about software glitches in little shops does not

However I do agree with your point (3). Where the heck did all that money go? Lawyers, yet again?

Yes this is how the world works. Guess I don't like how the world works.

eek said:

And back on vague topic

https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1744313909283094573

What's fair compensation for all the distress and suffering of a postmaster falsely accused of stealing, losing their livelihood, and waiting years to for their name to be cleared?

If your answer is £5,000 then you probably work for the Post Office.

Well publicised, over generous compensation from the govt IMMEDIATELY would be a good thing for Sunak to get done

They found the money for bogus furlough, and expensive PPE soon enough

@Leon

A question:

Who you attach more blame to, the PO staff and management (aka overpromoted public sector bods) or the lawyers that advised them?

Which of these classes did the show demonise?

Cyclefree said:

Just a quick visit as am busy today.

I first wrote for my own website about this back in December 2021.

I only wrote about it on here in response to someone wondering why it had not gained any public traction because I thought the reasons for that were worth exploring. I also wanted to explain what can sometimes seem an obscure and complicated issue and bring out the similarities with other scandals and the political - in its widest sense - angle to this: it is about abuse of power and what happens when that is not challenged.

I also hope to bring the perspective of someone who has actually set up and run an investigations team and been involved in fraud and other investigations.

But the real work and honours go to Nick Wallis, Computer Weekly, Private Eye etc who really uncovered this.

I will have much to say about the misbehaviour of the lawyers in this. Their role has been utterly disgraceful - far more blameworthy than many of the other groups because they were the gatekeepers and could have stopped it. There will be more evidence to come on this.

The key issue to remember here is that this is not a one off. The playbook being used here is the same as that used by the state in lots of other scandals:

- denial
- delay
- diminish what has happened
- disregard of those to whom it has happened.

Thanks. To these 'd's may be added 'dispersal, distribution or dilution'. This is how blame is dealt with, unless there is an obvious very junior defenceless candidate to take it all. In any complex matter large numbers of individuals and corporate bodies, public and private, are involved, from Parliament down to some defence solicitor's paralegal note taker from a small firm in Grimetown. Each and every one can point to somewhere up or down the long line and away from themselves. This is an important branch of 'complexification' which is also essential.

isam said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.

But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs

OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on

In her earlier career Lia Williams was notorious in getting her kit off in BBC costume dramas like Mr Wroe's Virgins. She was quite a looker.

I feel for Paula Vennells, as one-trick Tory hacks are looking to scapegoat her. If you want a scapegoat, Starmer has just admitted on radio he was DPP at the time.

Peter Hitchens thinks she should be forced to keep her CBE

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12933785/PETER-HITCHENS-Make-Post-Office-boss-CBE-reminder-justice-strangled.html

Quelle suprise from Peter "I must most vehemently disagree with everyone because they are an idiot" Hitchens.

Andy_JS said:

"Post Office suspected of more injustices over Horizon pilot scheme
Exclusive: software believed to have resulted in prosecutions even before full system rollout in 1999

The Post Office is suspected of wrongly prosecuting dozens more operators who took part in a pilot scheme of the faulty Horizon system, the Guardian has been told. Amid growing anger over the treatment of postmasters whose lives have been ruined in the scandal, Whitehall sources have confirmed that a precursor scheme was rolled out in 1995 and 1996 to hundreds of branches in north-east England. After taking part in the pilot, at least two branch managers were prosecuted despite protesting that there was a glitch in the system, a senior Labour MP has claimed."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/07/post-office-suspected-of-more-wrongful-prosecutions-of-operators-over-horizon

Yes, which is the only bit I personally encountered, remembering a very brief canteen conversation with someone from the counters side of the business along the lines of, "you think you've got problems, you should see the mess we've got with these Horizon pilots". I'd gone from the business before most of what has been dramatised came to pass, and working on the mails side I never heard anything about Horizon after that lunchtime. You'd think the computer weekly article would have got the gossip on the grapevine going, but I don't recall hearing anything about it. Indeed the CW journalists thought their phones would be ringing off the hook after they published their expose, but said there was nothing; no interest at all.

Credit to CW for first putting the ball on the ground, but their publication was sadly the worst place to actually set it rolling.

squareroot2 said:

Ed Davey is grey. Daisy will at least bring colour notwithstanding that she might not be a better leader. Atm the Lib Dems are invisible.

I checked her socials and her shitposting game is non-existent. She seems very earnest and ideally suited to fighting an election in the early 90s.

Also looks a bit like Debbie off the Street. Possible positive.

Andy_JS said:

There was a similar scandal in Australia recently, to do with a new debt recovery system. It was responsible for 470,000 wrongly-issued debts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robodebt_scheme

Also, one in the Netherlands.

"Dutch childcare benefits scandal"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_childcare_benefits_scandal

"The Dutch childcare benefits scandal is a political scandal in the Netherlands concerning false allegations of fraud made by the Tax and Customs Administration (Belastingdienst) while attempting to regulate the distribution of childcare benefits, that led to the collective resignation of the government in early 2021. Between 2005 and 2019, authorities wrongly accused an estimated 26,000 parents of making fraudulent benefit claims, requiring them to pay back the allowances they had received in their entirety. In many cases, this sum amounted to tens of thousands of euros, driving families into severe financial hardship."

Anyone spot a pattern here? New automated government schemes (to replace manual systems that, although slow, did the job okay), which end up falsely accusing huge numbers of innocent people.

We forget, now, the almost insane faith in computer technology in the late 1990s, back when a holiday deal start-up website created by a couple of students in their back room was thought to be worth £££squillions.

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.

But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs

OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on

I wouldn't say ex Hollyoaks star Will Mellor was exactly a mirror image of Lee Castleton who he portrayed, though he did a reasonable job of it

eek said:

A great article on how tactical voting may be the difference between a small(ish) Labour win and a l landslide majority

https://swingometer.substack.com/p/what-would-a-really-big-labour-win

A dilemma for many LibDem voters, since we'd probably be better off (both as a country and from party self-interest) without a landslide.

Mexicanpete said:

...

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.

But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs

OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on

In her earlier career Lia Williams was notorious in getting her kit off in BBC costume dramas like Mr Wroe's Virgins. She was quite a looker.

I feel for Paula Vennells, as one-trick Tory hacks are looking to scapegoat her. If you want a scapegoat, Starmer has just admitted on radio he was DPP at the time.

Lucky for him, then, that the middle 'P' stands for public whereas the PO has for centuries been able to prosecute privately...

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

The Mail's review was quite snooty that not enough credit had been given to, er, The Daily Mail. But they did get a mention in e.4. If I was Computer Weekly I'd be more aggrieved, given their consistent championing of this cause. But I'm sure they are delighted that it has been brought to a wider public consciousness.

Yes. Proper journalists on computer weekly it seems: well done them

There are some quiet heroes besides Alan Bates. But an awful lot of villains

I remember saying a year ago, as I was yawning (again, and wrongly) over the tediousness of this scandal, that what it needed was a STORY - a few human examples to make it vivid and emotional. That’s exactly what ITV did: well done them, too

It is pleasing that homemade TV drama can still do this - change an entire national conversation and for a righteous cause

Some other Pb-er noted that the scriptwriter used every single cliche in the book - from the pints at the pub table to the lovable cake making lady to the absurdly pretty house in snowdonia - but who cares. It really worked

Yes, but the story was always there. The original Computer Weekly article - which they held off publishing for a year for fear of the consequences - contained six case studies of individuals who had, at that stage, suffered hugely, including bankruptcy and prison. The interesting question is why a campaign group and a website and a radio series and magazine coverage and a book and a parliamentary hearing all failed to attract the scale of public attention that this clearly deserved. Usually we rely on the Guardian to champion such stuff, but even they don't appear to have twigged.

Sadly, I do suspect that the fact that all three parties have left fingerprints at the crime scene is a much bigger part of the explanation than we would like to admit. We'd like to think that there are lots of politicians motivated to champion injustice for moral, altruistic reasons - whereas the truth is that almost all of them have a filter that asks "what's in it for me?" and "what's in it for my party?".

That Arbuthnot was obscure, apparently unambitious, and on his way out (heading for the Lords, possibly already on that promise) as far as active party politics is concerned, is surely pertinent.

The political aspects of the scandal seem to me to date from around 2009, because it was in September 2009 that the Computer Weekly article showed that problems were widespead (citing 7 examples) and in the same year the sub-postmasters formed a campaign to coordinate their activities. So it's really from that year onwards that you would have expected the relevant ministers to have started asking serious questions of the Post Office, and those questions and a reluctance to accept trite explanations should have grown exponentially in the years that followed.

The Daily Express quote the ministers that Private Eye consider to have been at fault as follows:

"While the miscarriage of justice has been resurfaced and those accused cleared, there has been growing speculation over whether those in power could have done anything about it sooner. Some of the key political players during this time have now been highlighted and questions are now being asked how this could have been avoided and whether key warning signs were ignored. According to Private Eye these ministers were a mix of Liberal Democrat and Conservative Party ministers. The publication claimed the ministers “failed to properly examine the unfurling public scandal while holding the postal services brief”. These ministers included current Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey, Norman Lamb, and former Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson. They were followed by a series of brief Conservative Party ministers, George Freeman, Baroness Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Margot James, Andrew Griffiths, and Kelly Tolhurst. These seven ministers have been named because of their roles within government at the time."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1852090/post-office-scandal-political-players-warning-signs

I'm surprised by the omission from that list of whoever had ministerial responsibility in the last few months of Brown's government since they were also within the timeframe, whoever it was seems to be succeeding in keeping their head down.

But the question also arises as to why this is being seen as a junior ministerial issue - by the mid 2010s it had surely become more than that. Only Johnson emerges with any credit, for belatedly instigating a public inquiry, and even that was only made statutory nearly two years into his premiership.

The political scandal continues to this day. Sunak's Government had been apparently content for the timescale for compensation to pootle along in the long grass until last week's ITV drama suddenly sparked widespread public outrage while revealing nothing that had not been known many years ago. In the face of the most widespread miscarriage of British justice ever, the government is being prompted to act not by long established facts but by its inability to continue to brush things under the carpet now that the public has finally found its voice.

Mexicanpete said:

MoonRabbit said:

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

MoonRabbit said:

MarqueeMark said:

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

rcs1000 said:

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

These Golden Globes are a dogs dinner. The host had the tone all wrong.

Liking Anatomy of a Fall and Beef being recognised. 👍🏻👍🏻
Disliking Oppenheimer getting a round one for Direction. 👎
I’m not much a fan of Bear or Crown either 👎👎

Havn’t seen Poor Things so can’t comment on that one, but it’s supposed to be bonkers and surprising. Don’t like Emma Stone at all but at least she beat the drivel that was Barbie

Are you Ben Shapiro?

Clearly not as I had to Google who he is.

“The conservative commentator set fire to two Barbie dolls in a scathing 43-minute video review of the film.”

It’s not that it tried to turn woke into an art form, though it did, it’s that it doesn’t make sense and is not even entertaining.

How can you live over there, the USA is nuts.

Ugh. Gongs for Barbie.
This charade is nothing more than a Master Plumber annual dinner, handing out gongs for any old pump installation. What an utter waste of time.

Barbie got bums on seats in cinemas - regardless of the merits of the movie, it stopped the rot in cinema-going. So it was always going to be looked upon kindly.

No Marky - nobody actually likes the Barbie Movie, regardless if they felt oddly compelled to check what the fuss is all about. Film industry Gongs should give a recognition to Art, not marketing.

What do you think caused the mass lying to review sites? Why couldn't people just admit they hated the movie?

I rated Barbie 4.5 on Letterboxd, the overall mean score is 3.9.

My ★★★★½ review of Barbie on Letterboxd https://boxd.it/4J8OqB

You have no concept how your Shareprice has crashed in my eyes. 😔

“the plot skipped past a number of gaping plot holes with charm and a wink.” 🤷‍♀️

To address head on Roberts “What do you think caused the mass lying to review sites?” Simples - it’s the same thing which put Donald Trump in the Whitehouse. Just like Barbie the Movie, people liked the concept, or promise, of Trump delivering a fresh new thing, and ignored the fact it was actually such a dogs dinner it didn’t deliver on that promise, or deliver anything at all really.

If you wish to understand the ongoing appeal of Trump to the MAGA crowd, just read Foxy’s Barbie review today.
The plot had a number of gaping plot holes, but I liked the charm with which it “skipped” past them. WTF!

There won’t be a sequel.

On a flight from Fort Lauderdale to New York before Christmas I saw Barbie by default. I was intending to watch Mission Impossible but the film was longer than the flight, so I watched Barbie. It was wonderfully and positively woke, clever and featured national treasure Rob Brydon!

Has everyone here been to Peppa Pig world? You’d like it.

Ignore the gaping plot holes, 5/5 for Rob Bryson being in it.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Stocky said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.

Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.

1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation
2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity
3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs
4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.

The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.

Are you complaining that an excellent TV drama has got the country engaged in a terrible injustice that was hitherto ignored? What’s your answer: force everyone to listen to podcasts about post offices?

Stop being ridiculous. This is how the world works: well told, moving human stories get attention, minutiae about software glitches in little shops does not

However I do agree with your point (3). Where the heck did all that money go? Lawyers, yet again?

Point 3 rather misunderstands how settlements of legal cases work. This was, ultimately, a mutually agreed out of court settlement between the Post Office and postmasters to cover the claimant's compensation and legal fees. Had there been no legal fees (which is hardly likely), the agreed amount would have been nearer £12 million. It was never the case that £58 million was some kind of assessed amount intended as pure compensation.

Had the Post Office settled before tens of thousands of hours of legal fees had been racked up, they'd have spent a lot less. But it would have been their saving rather than the postmasters'. That's the danger of prolonged litigation and why you should seek to settle early if you can.

Perhaps, had the postmasters not settled out of court, they'd have received more than £12 million PLUS got a costs order against the Post Office. But they may not - that's the judgment you make in accepting a settlement.

It's true that is a lot of money in legal fees. But years of litigation representing hundreds of individuals is a hell of a lot of lawyer hours.

AIUI it wasn't legal fees. They were funded by litigation funding which of course requires a return and I beleve that was where the bulk of the £56m went.

Litigation funding is a thing and it is growing. A bit like the no-win/no-fee models.

https://thehedgefundjournal.com/the-emerging-market-for-litigation-funding/

Edit: of course compensating a hedge fund for funding your legal action is a form of "legal fee".

Leon said:

If I lived in the Baltics, I’d be a tad nervous about Putin’s next move

I don't think they have any reason to be nervous at all. The "Loudmouth Baltics" (as M. V. Zakharova calls them, LOL) are inside the EU and NATO not outside, knocking on the door with dog shit on their tattered shoes, like Ukraine. They don't have anything like the cultural and emotional heft that Donbas, Odessa, etc. have to Russia.

Also, the armed forces of the Russian Federation are advancing at the rate of one izba every four weeks. It's laughable to propose that they are any sort of conventional military threat to the LBs.

However, VVP doesn't follow his dreams, he follows his opportunties. If he got the chance to stir shit inside the LBs and foment social and political strife I have zero doubt that he'd do it.

Malmesbury said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

viewcode said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Can somebody explain to me what NU10K’rs are?

Thanx.

A PBer (I think it's @Malmesbury: could be @JosiasJessop) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.

I think he's right, btw

Were you asking for the names of specific people?

I think it's more plausible that the state serves the interests of Tory party donors.

The same kind of people dominate public service, both direct and third sector. They did so under New Labour and before.

They are, nearly always, in the rich-but-profess-vague-do-goodery group. Which is not surprising, given their fondness for government money.

I'm not sure, there are some overlaps but I know people in both groups and I'd say they are mostly quite different.

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.

But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs

OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on

In her earlier career Lia Williams was notorious in getting her kit off in BBC costume dramas like Mr Wroe's Virgins. She was quite a looker.

I feel for Paula Vennells, as one-trick Tory hacks are looking to scapegoat her. If you want a scapegoat, Starmer has just admitted on radio he was DPP at the time.

So what? Post Office didn’t need to consult his Office. And the problem with an issue like this is that it’s drip, drip, drip, not flood.
Ms C is quite right IMHO. There are some lawyers and policy makers at the top of the Post Office who are soon, I hope, going to be squirming.

Well quite. The Post Office was in the unusual position of being able to instigate criminal prosecutions entirely independently of the DPP.

Peter_the_Punter said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

Harsh on Lia Williams. Very good casting and excellent acting I'd say.

But you prove my point. The actress looks like a well dressed witch, or maybe a semi retired dominatrix in a publicity still for her memoirs

OTOH I have been looking at some of the real-life people behind the story: ITV did a superb job in casting people who actually look like the people they are playing. From Alan Bates/Toby Jones, and on

I wouldn't say ex Hollyoaks star Will Mellor was exactly a mirror image of Lee Castleton who he portrayed, though he did a reasonable job of it

Richard Rolls was nothing like the person I watched giving evidence to the Inquiry, either in appearance or manner. The scene he was involved in was however done brilliantly, and got the gist of the matter across succinctly.

Brilliant tv.

Monica Dolan, however, was (made up to look like) the spit of Jo Castleton.

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Stocky said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Also worth noting that the ITV postal drama was actually POSITIVE about one politician: the Tory MP James Arbuthnot

I actually found that quite refreshing. When “a Tory MP” hoved into view I thought, wearily, here we go, he’ll be another gammony, blazer wearing fox hunter who wants to buy all the post offices and turn them into sweat shops. But no. The scriptwriter avoided that and made him pleasant and sincere and hard working. Which added to the drama - merely by being unexpected

He deserves a little credit

Having known him personally a little, at least in the past, I hope that he's sent ITV a fine case of wine, since he was extraordinarily lucky with his portrayal. Which isn't to detract from the difference he's made with the campaign.

I wonder who among the reasonably broad cast of campaigners can take the credit for getting ITV interested in a drama, on what at first glance must have seemed a challenging topic. Wallis, perhaps?

On the flip side, I feel slightly sorry for Ms Vennels, who is now probably the most hated person in the country, taking over from whoever chopped down the sycamore gap sycamore

She might well be an evil bitch, on the other hand she might be an averagely decent person who made idiotic mistakes and really stupid decisions. We need to know

The ITV drama, however, made it absolutely clear she is an evil bitch, right down to the casting of a sharp nosed woman who looked a bit like a well dressed witch

Yes, I feel some sympathy too. This is part of the witch hunt I warned against yesterday.

Last night I watched the whole of the ITV programme.

1) The show explicitly states that some scenes are imagined; Vennels may have been treated very unfairly and I wonder whether she is considering legal action for defamation
2) I have more disdain for the scumbag lawyers who were behind the POs actions and have retained anonymity
3) How can it be right that a £58m court win be reduced to £12m due to lawyers and other costs
4) Correct me if I'm wrong but a key hero, the journalist Nick Wallis, was not mentioned in the show.

The show was good - but it was a show and it is unfortunate to say the least, and possibly unfair to some and lenient on others, that the public will take their knowledge of this scandal from this show ahead of Wallis's far superior and thorough podcast series.

The scenes imagined weren't those involving the PO folk. There, the producers trod very carefully, as Wallis has said in his blog. The imagined scenes were the domestic ones with the subpostmasters, where they needed succint dramatic conversation and emotional reaction to ground the storyline.

Yes, I am sure the more public scenes. - involving PO staff etc - were ruthlessly legalled before they were broadcast. The potential for libel suits is obvious

Ms Vennells could argue that she was portrayed in demeanour and expression as a hatchet faced old cow, but expression and demeanour are not quantifiable things on which you can build litigation

It was all very cleverly done. Right down to the kind hearted cake lady who preferred making scones to adding up annoying figures. Everyone knows someone sweet like that. It was superbly manipulative

That same person whose just been on Woman's Hour this morning! If she took a tupperware box of cupcakes along, you couldn't hear them eating.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Malmesbury said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

viewcode said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Can somebody explain to me what NU10K’rs are?

Thanx.

A PBer (I think it's @Malmesbury: could be @JosiasJessop) is convinced that the British State is captured by and serves a small group of people. This group is referred to as The Nu10K. They are characterised by i) high-paid administrative positions, ii) rarely fired for incompetence, and iii) when fired for incompetence are rapidly reemployed at the same or higher wage.

I think he's right, btw

Were you asking for the names of specific people?

I think it's more plausible that the state serves the interests of Tory party donors.

The same kind of people dominate public service, both direct and third sector. They did so under New Labour and before.

They are, nearly always, in the rich-but-profess-vague-do-goodery group. Which is not surprising, given their fondness for government money.

I'm not sure, there are some overlaps but I know people in both groups and I'd say they are mostly quite different.

The kind of hedge fund and city folk and dodgy right wing think tanks and private sector millionaires and property developers and oil companies etc. that fund the Conservative Party aren't hugely noted for their interest in public service