@DPJHodges Just to be crystal clear. Keir Starmer said in the House yesterday:
“What was on issue in the trial is not the position of the current Government, but the position of the last Government”.
That statement was a clear, provable lie. Collins literally cut and pasted from the Labour manifesto because the position of the current government was key to the trial.
He may eventually take the win, but Hodges seems a little ahead of himself here.
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
An inevitable consequence of restricting the FOBTs, and casual betting now being done mostly online.
There’s probably more than 57 High Streets in the UK with two PP shops, that they opened purely for the FOBTs, so it’s not as bad as it sounds - apart from the staff who lose jobs of course.
And while everyone is looking at the dead cat in the room, the questions that should be being asked about the Mandelson debacle aren't being asked. There is enough shit therein to collapse the Govt and no doubt senior government people of all persuasions.
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
You do know this is going to crack on for a fortnight until someone resigns irrespective of the validity of the claims. Another six questions from Badenoch next week and the week after until Powell and Starmer resign, dragging her team in Government through the dirt too, with the net beneficiary being Sir Nigel.
And while everyone is looking at the dead cat in the room, the questions that should be being asked about the Mandelson debacle aren't being asked. There is enough shit therein to collapse the Govt and no doubt senior government people of all persuasions.
Not forgetting Hodges promised us McSweeneygate was the real cheese
And while everyone is looking at the dead cat in the room, the questions that should be being asked about the Mandelson debacle aren't being asked. There is enough shit therein to collapse the Govt and no doubt senior government people of all persuasions.
Funny how Reform voters are so interested in the rather opaque China spying trial collapse, yet completely uninterested in the conviction of a key friend and colleague of Farage for taking bribes to further the interests of Russia.
I wonder why.
Why don't you ask the Westminster Lobby or the UK wide news channels why that is the case, its been a serious problem now since devolution. There has been numerous political scandals in Scotland, Wales and NI for the last twenty five years and they simple do not get reported or forensically scrutinised by the London media. In fact a case in point, Nicola Sturgeon's actual record as FM in Scotland is absolutely terrible, she launched a ferry with no windows or funnels in 2017, it never saw service for another eight years and should never have been launched when it was for that big Sturgeon headline on the Scottish news. But the London media fawned over her and believed the huge spad driven narrative without so much as doing the most basic homework of scraping below the surface. The endless list of SNP government scandals would have ended a Westminster government years ago. And as for the Labour run Welsh government, ditto!
So poor is the UK wide coverage of the devolved areas in the UK and the poor governance or scandals I once watched an episode of Question Time where an audience member in Wales ranted about the Westminster government's poor running of NHS Wales when they had not been in charge of it for years! It was embarrassing and it should have been a huge wake up call to the UK media, but it wasn't. So excuse me if I am not in the least surprised that the conviction of a key friend and colleague of Farage in Wales for taking bribes to further the interests of Russia has been of any more interest to Reform voters UK wide the rest of the UK electorate. And that is because they have probable not even heard about it thanks to the lack of UK wide reporting while the scandal of the Westminster China Spying trial is making the frontpages UK wide.
To be fair to Newsnight, they did run a story a few years back about the ferries scandal in Scotland, but who was watching apart from political anoraks like me? I will go one better, why not ask Reform, Conservative, Labour, Libdem or any other voters on the mainland UK how many of them knew that there was no functioning devolved government at Stormont for three years? You get my point, if the UK media doesn't ever bother to scrutinise or report news from devolved areas in the way they do Westminster, don't bother trying to blame the ordinary voters from parties you don't like for not being aware of it. And I say this as a frustrated member of the Scottish Conservatives who are currently being hammered in the polls here by a faceless Scottish Reform party with no discernable leadership or policies while my party has been the most effective Opposition to the SNP and thankfully saw off the terrible GRR bill and its awful implications for women in Scotland!
Its a problem. I was genuinely impressed by one of yours railing against Swinney openly lying to parliament - and of course the cybernats swing in with misinformation and abuse.
Misinformation by the nats is in part why we have this comprehension mess in Scotland. They have been in office since General Wade and push so much guff in government that the bit of reporting we get is of the guff, and when you question it they say you're against Scotland.
RochdalePioneers, seconded. But we have the added the problem of such poor and hollowed out journalistic reporting from BBC Scotland and STV News which I jokingly call SNP News. Thank god for the again now hollowed out printed media in Scotland for doing all the heavy lifting mostly on their own and mostly ignored by BBC Scotland and STV. I am trying to remember which SNP scandal it was that broke a couple of years ago, but the STV teatime news didn't mention it for two days!
I read an article a couple of days ago about how BBC Scotland was struggling to invest and make enough content and as a result it was struggling to compete with streaming channels. But thanks to the pressure from the SNP Government in Scotland they launched that white elephant of a second channel and all to produce a fecking 'Scottish' evening news programme that no one watches and they were left to fill the rest of their small evening programme with mostly repeats from the BBC Scotland archives from years ago!
How many news journalists or new Scottish programming fell by the way side funding this ridiculous demand by the SNP Government. Its just yet another example of their wasteful incompetent demands in an attempt to appear a nation in waiting for Indy. And do not get me started on the wasteful 'Scottish' extortionately expensive' embassies that do sod all to promote or help Scots abroad and simple give Angus Robertson a reason to visit them on his many travels abroad!
I think you must not be old enough to remember what happened to the Scottish national newspapers.
Scotsman - went from middle of the road to hard Unionist DT emulator, and abandoned its central Edinburgh office building for a new one opposite Holyrood which it then abandoned for some industrial estate somewhere I can't remember
Herald - ditto change from middle of the road, lost so much circulation it had to set up the National as a not very SNP-friendly way of trying to recover some of the lost income
Edit: A decade and more later, I'm still bitterly angry about the Scotsman. I grew up on it and miss it enormously.
OMG! I am loving the desperation of the SNP supporters on here this morning spinning against the hard truth of what has been actually happening in Scotland and in other devolved areas of the UK and calling out the failure of the London centric UK news media to report it. But seriously you embarrass yourself by trying to claim that 'Herald - ditto change from middle of the road, lost so much circulation it had to set up the National as a not very SNP-friendly way of trying to recover some of the lost income'!!!
And suggesting that I might not be old enough to remember what happened to the Scottish national newspapers, I am going to be sixty this year and I have been a political anorak since my mid teens, I have also been posting here for twenty years too! Really, you are claiming that the SNP mouth piece that is the National which is the SNP equivalent of Pravda is a not very SNP-friendly newspaper?! Thankfully I was not holding my coffee when I read this, this comic with sales in the very very low four figures totally directed at the SNP Indy movement is meant to be a money maker for the Herald?! Would that be in the same that the second white elephant of a BBC Scotland channel was meant to push Indy too?
Have you not realised that the National was primarily a Green/SSP paper when it was founded?* It's changed a bit sicne then, but that was very noticeable att he time. Circulation in print form is low partly (but only partly) because it tends to be a younger persons' paper given its politics.
The BBC Scotland channel has to be seen in the wider context of Government subsidy for local newspapers through the BBC etc - and almost all of them are owned by anti-indy owners (not many of them).
*Edit: just because something supports independence doesn't mean it is pro-SNP.
Dyed in the wool unionists , especially bitter and twisted Tories are unable to grasp that fact Carnyx. They are still miffed that they are not lording it over us.
I can't deny it. Lording it over @malcolmg was always a cherished dream of mine.
Imagine my angst at having it dashed from my hands. Sob.
It's a real turnup for the books, that's for sure.
“ It's a real turnupturnip for the books, that's for sure.
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
You do know this is going to crack on for a fortnight until someone resigns irrespective of the validity of the claims. Another six questions from Badenoch next week and the week after until Powell and Starmer resign, dragging heir team in Government through the dirt too, with the net beneficiary being Sir Nigel.
I don't think anyone will need to resign. Most people have little or no interest in it and I would describe it as a Westminster bubble story.
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
But....
Starmer's story is that everyone did as they should and it's the Tories who are to blame.
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
About the only person I have seen worth following on this is David Allen Green, who, IMO brings us up to date as far as can be done today:
The only thing I would add is that in guessing what lies behind it all, Ockham's razor + common sense + cockup + our dependence on China + the need to complexify and spread possible blame fairly thinly between anyone who matters, supplies the necessary material.
That's kind of what I expected following the exchanges at PMQs yesterday. I think it is tolerably clear that it is the DPP and the CPS that have got questions to answer here, not the government. Starmer confused things somewhat moaning about the delay in bring the 2023 Act into force but that really is not the point. The point is that there was sufficient evidence to meet the 1911 test at the time of charging AND at the time the decision was made not to proceed. The CPS were simply wrong to drop the prosecution.
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
15%, is that a record poll for a sitting government?
@DPJHodges Just to be crystal clear. Keir Starmer said in the House yesterday:
“What was on issue in the trial is not the position of the current Government, but the position of the last Government”.
That statement was a clear, provable lie. Collins literally cut and pasted from the Labour manifesto because the position of the current government was key to the trial.
He may eventually take the win, but Hodges seems a little ahead of himself here.
SKS told a lie?
Never.
Wouldn't it be more difficult to find when he disnt lie?
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
You do know this is going to crack on for a fortnight until someone resigns irrespective of the validity of the claims. Another six questions from Badenoch next week and the week after until Powell and Starmer resign, dragging her team in Government through the dirt too, with the net beneficiary being Sir Nigel.
Over my dead body! I'm downing tools right now on this total Westminster bubble nothingburger. Yawn.
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
You do know this is going to crack on for a fortnight until someone resigns irrespective of the validity of the claims. Another six questions from Badenoch next week and the week after until Powell and Starmer resign, dragging heir team in Government through the dirt too, with the net beneficiary being Sir Nigel.
I don't think anyone will need to resign. Most people have little or no interest in it and I would describe it as a Westminster bubble story.
All your PB Tory friends are very excited. I thought Rayner would survive, so what do I know?
I bet you thought that when Peter Hain was forced to resign after the BBC headlined him every day for ten days during the New Labour Government. Chris Mason had the bit between his teeth yesterday.
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
But....
Starmer's story is that everyone did as they should and it's the Tories who are to blame.
Starmer has created more problems for the government by seeking to turn this into a “Tory cock-up” issue. I think.
There may be an element to that. But I think by going hard on this being solely a Tory error when there are so many other moving parts here, he has created a political storm of his own making.
I have just see that poll with labour on 15% and in 3rd place
Is this the first poll to put labour below the conservatives?
No there have been a few since the GE, there's only been one since the Locals, with More in Common, 16 June (22-21) Find Out Now had Con ahead of Lab once in Nov, once in Dec and twice in Jan, not since then though
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
15%, is that a record poll for a sitting government?
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk but this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
That's the question I keep asking. All the reporting keeps saying "but it's complicated", which isn't any help.
I think it is interesting that in todays urgent question both Emily Thornberry, chair of the foreign affairs select committee and Matt Western, chair joint committee on national security strategy, both labour, were critical of the situation and together with the chairs of the home office, and justice committee are to convene a joint and urgent 'formal inquiry' and asked that civil servants and ministers to be called to testify to this committee
For me that is the correct forum to establish the facts, and whether or not the government and Starmer's position is established as correct or otherwise
This is not a story that is going away, and next week the decision on the London China Embassy is due and as for trade talks with China, then who knows ?
Have you read this? You will find it very helpful.
Yes and if you read the final paragraph that is exactly the issue to be investigated by the joint select committees
The general thread is the CPS are asking for evidence they don't need from the Government. He does caveat that by suggesting the Government was under no obligation not to supply that albeit unnecessary information. I conclude he is suggesting that it was the CPS and not the Government who collapsed the prosecution.
And if so the joint select committee will agree but it all depends on whether Collins acted entirely on his own with no discussion with government advisors or ministers or not
My take is that the current government has been trying to engineer “plausible deniability” of ministerial involvement, but the previous government’s ministers know that a case of such significance would absolutely have gone right to the top of the ministerial chain, and that the current govt is trying to throw a career civil servant under the bus for what was very obviously an explicitly political decision.
Starmer’s lawyerly instincts coming to the fore again, as he thinks that undocumented meetings mean that he can deny all knowledge of the actual process.
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
You do know this is going to crack on for a fortnight until someone resigns irrespective of the validity of the claims. Another six questions from Badenoch next week and the week after until Powell and Starmer resign, dragging her team in Government through the dirt too, with the net beneficiary being Sir Nigel.
So the Labour Party is selling "L'état, c'est moi", now?
We are the State, so an attack on us is an attack on the State?
All we need to add is “C'est par mon ordre et pour le bien de l'Etat que le porteur du present a fait ce qu'il a fait.”
If we get on the wrong side of China, they might stop selling us tat that we don't need.
What am I missing here?
It’s worse than that.
Their plan is to stop selling us things that we might really need, such as EV batteries, so they can instead sell us their cars by denying European and American manufacturers the batteries - because Europe and America don’t have the technology to produce the new improved batteries the Chinese are now making.
This is why Trump is talking about 100% tariffs on China, and other Western nations face the same dilemma.
We mustn't be dependent on them for anything important.
Sadly it’s a bit late now, that ship sailed some years ago and the Chinese about-turn on trade policy was entirely predictable.
I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but IMHO Trump was mostly right on his tariffs, there’s a desparate need to reshore a lot of manufacturing in key sectors. Yes a lot of the president’s approach was to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but the same sentiment should be echoing around the Western world.
Trump has not been right on tariffs. It's hard to imagine anyone being more wrong.
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
You do know this is going to crack on for a fortnight until someone resigns irrespective of the validity of the claims. Another six questions from Badenoch next week and the week after until Powell and Starmer resign, dragging her team in Government through the dirt too, with the net beneficiary being Sir Nigel.
So the Labour Party is selling "L'état, c'est moi", now?
We are the State, so an attack on us is an attack on the State?
All we need to add is “C'est par mon ordre et pour le bien de l'Etat que le porteur du present a fait ce qu'il a fait.”
Sorry, I got a U in O level French. It was however my only fail.
And while everyone is looking at the dead cat in the room, the questions that should be being asked about the Mandelson debacle aren't being asked. There is enough shit therein to collapse the Govt and no doubt senior government people of all persuasions.
You keep saying this, but what’s the background and are there any links to the story?
The China affair does demonstrate how utterly pathetic Labour Party communications under Starmer have become.
Two Senior Tories, Tugenhadt and Kearns accidentally recruit alleged Chinese spies, and as a result the Labour Government falls.
One couldn't make it up.
Ironic given that pair have been some of the most vocal in their China rhetoric, not Sinophobic but warning about the dangers.
Where better to place your alleged spies “it’s the last place they would have looked”.
The idea that they were going to find any intelligence in Westminster, ;et alone in the office of a back bencher shows an almost painful naivety on the part of their paymasters.
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
No I think that is the first posting of many.
So who gets Labour's minus two?
Lost to rounding, everyone on the same as last week otherwise
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
About the only person I have seen worth following on this is David Allen Green, who, IMO brings us up to date as far as can be done today:
The only thing I would add is that in guessing what lies behind it all, Ockham's razor + common sense + cockup + our dependence on China + the need to complexify and spread possible blame fairly thinly between anyone who matters, supplies the necessary material.
That's kind of what I expected following the exchanges at PMQs yesterday. I think it is tolerably clear that it is the DPP and the CPS that have got questions to answer here, not the government. Starmer confused things somewhat moaning about the delay in bring the 2023 Act into force but that really is not the point. The point is that there was sufficient evidence to meet the 1911 test at the time of charging AND at the time the decision was made not to proceed. The CPS were simply wrong to drop the prosecution.
I have just see that poll with labour on 15% and in 3rd place
Is this the first poll to put labour below the conservatives?
Not by as much as two points I don't think and behind Green on goal difference.
Highest lead Tory over Labour since the GE was 5 (26 to 21) with More in Common 31 March and 27 to 22 with Freshwater Strategy 6 April but Freshwater were not at that time BPC members (they are now)
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
But....
Starmer's story is that everyone did as they should and it's the Tories who are to blame.
Well the rather less plausible Tory Story is it's nefarious Starmer leaning on the CPS for fear of China and now lying about it.
If we get on the wrong side of China, they might stop selling us tat that we don't need.
What am I missing here?
It’s worse than that.
Their plan is to stop selling us things that we might really need, such as EV batteries, so they can instead sell us their cars by denying European and American manufacturers the batteries - because Europe and America don’t have the technology to produce the new improved batteries the Chinese are now making.
This is why Trump is talking about 100% tariffs on China, and other Western nations face the same dilemma.
We mustn't be dependent on them for anything important.
Sadly it’s a bit late now, that ship sailed some years ago and the Chinese about-turn on trade policy was entirely predictable.
I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but IMHO Trump was mostly right on his tariffs, there’s a desparate need to reshore a lot of manufacturing in key sectors. Yes a lot of the president’s approach was to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but the same sentiment should be echoing around the Western world.
Trump has not been right on tariffs. It's hard to imagine anyone being more wrong.
If you are trying to organise a campaign against China (for which a case can certainly be made) pissing off all your friends and allies is a really, really stupid way to act. Moronic, in fact.
The China affair does demonstrate how utterly pathetic Labour Party communications under Starmer have become.
Two Senior Tories, Tugenhadt and Kearns accidentally recruit alleged Chinese spies, and as a result the Labour Government falls.
One couldn't make it up.
Ironic given that pair have been some of the most vocal in their China rhetoric, not Sinophobic but warning about the dangers.
Where better to place your alleged spies “it’s the last place they would have looked”.
The idea that they were going to find any intelligence in Westminster, ;et alone in the office of a back bencher shows an almost painful naivety on the part of their paymasters.
I am reminded of the enterprising chap who invented a fictional network of spies in Britain, and sold their “intelligence” to the Nazis.
British Intelligence found him, and co-opted him to deceive the Germans further.
IIRC he retired after the war, rather wealthy, with a nice collection of medals from both sides.
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
All hail Zack.
To listen to some he has had a terrible fortnight lol
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
But....
Starmer's story is that everyone did as they should and it's the Tories who are to blame.
Well the rather less plausible Tory Story is it's nefarious Starmer leaning on the CPS for fear of China and now lying about it.
@DavidL has made a very informative post from a legal perspective, a little down thread.
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
About the only person I have seen worth following on this is David Allen Green, who, IMO brings us up to date as far as can be done today:
The only thing I would add is that in guessing what lies behind it all, Ockham's razor + common sense + cockup + our dependence on China + the need to complexify and spread possible blame fairly thinly between anyone who matters, supplies the necessary material.
That's kind of what I expected following the exchanges at PMQs yesterday. I think it is tolerably clear that it is the DPP and the CPS that have got questions to answer here, not the government. Starmer confused things somewhat moaning about the delay in bring the 2023 Act into force but that really is not the point. The point is that there was sufficient evidence to meet the 1911 test at the time of charging AND at the time the decision was made not to proceed. The CPS were simply wrong to drop the prosecution.
You’ve broken so many hearts with that post.
I'm sorry but if this was not the case Starmer would never have agreed to publish the witness statements. They make it clear where the fault lies and destroy the argument that the government inadvertently or otherwise simply did not provide the required information. They did.
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
But....
Starmer's story is that everyone did as they should and it's the Tories who are to blame.
Well the rather less plausible Tory Story is it's nefarious Starmer leaning on the CPS for fear of China and now lying about it.
Although the "SKS lying about it" bit does give credibility where there should be none.
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
15%, is that a record poll for a sitting government?
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
15%, is that a record poll for a sitting government?
No, Liz Truss holds that record.
Can you point to which poll that was?
People Polling 20 Oct (after her resignation announced, before Rishi took over) Lab 53 Con 14 LD 11 Green 6 SNP 5 Reform 5 Her lowest otherwise was 19%
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
About the only person I have seen worth following on this is David Allen Green, who, IMO brings us up to date as far as can be done today:
The only thing I would add is that in guessing what lies behind it all, Ockham's razor + common sense + cockup + our dependence on China + the need to complexify and spread possible blame fairly thinly between anyone who matters, supplies the necessary material.
That's kind of what I expected following the exchanges at PMQs yesterday. I think it is tolerably clear that it is the DPP and the CPS that have got questions to answer here, not the government. Starmer confused things somewhat moaning about the delay in bring the 2023 Act into force but that really is not the point. The point is that there was sufficient evidence to meet the 1911 test at the time of charging AND at the time the decision was made not to proceed. The CPS were simply wrong to drop the prosecution.
You’ve broken so many hearts with that post.
I'm sorry but if this was not the case Starmer would never have agreed to publish the witness statements. They make it clear where the fault lies and destroy the argument that the government inadvertently or otherwise simply did not provide the required information. They did.
Is that strictly true? Isn't the point that the CPS had a strong enough case without any input from the current Government, irrespective of whether the Government were protecting a national interest regarding trade and geo-politics by not committing to China's status as a pariah state?
That being so the best hope for PB Tories is that they can prove Starmer in some way misled the House at PMQs.
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
All hail Zack.
To listen to some he has had a terrible fortnight lol
He's done a grand job of killing off Sultanarama.
Just a pity we no longer have an environmentalist party.
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
All hail Zack.
To listen to some he has had a terrible fortnight lol
He's done a grand job of killing off Sultanarama.
Just a pity we no longer have an environmentalist party.
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
15%, is that a record poll for a sitting government?
No, Liz Truss holds that record.
Can you point to which poll that was?
People Polling 20 Oct (after her resignation announced, before Rishi took over) Lab 53 Con 14 LD 11 Green 6 SNP 5 Reform 5 Her lowest otherwise was 19%
Rishi hit 15% twice with PP and once with Find Out Now in the GE campaign, Major 18.5% with Gallup and Labs previous worst was 18% for Brown with MORI
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
But....
Starmer's story is that everyone did as they should and it's the Tories who are to blame.
Well the rather less plausible Tory Story is it's nefarious Starmer leaning on the CPS for fear of China and now lying about it.
@DavidL has made a very informative post from a legal perspective, a little down thread.
@DPJHodges Just to be crystal clear. Keir Starmer said in the House yesterday:
“What was on issue in the trial is not the position of the current Government, but the position of the last Government”.
That statement was a clear, provable lie. Collins literally cut and pasted from the Labour manifesto because the position of the current government was key to the trial.
He may eventually take the win, but Hodges seems a little ahead of himself here.
SKS told a lie?
Never.
Wouldn't it be more difficult to find when he disnt lie?
Aren't both you and Hodges walking a fine line with what is undoubtedly unParliamentary language?
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
About the only person I have seen worth following on this is David Allen Green, who, IMO brings us up to date as far as can be done today:
The only thing I would add is that in guessing what lies behind it all, Ockham's razor + common sense + cockup + our dependence on China + the need to complexify and spread possible blame fairly thinly between anyone who matters, supplies the necessary material.
That's kind of what I expected following the exchanges at PMQs yesterday. I think it is tolerably clear that it is the DPP and the CPS that have got questions to answer here, not the government. Starmer confused things somewhat moaning about the delay in bring the 2023 Act into force but that really is not the point. The point is that there was sufficient evidence to meet the 1911 test at the time of charging AND at the time the decision was made not to proceed. The CPS were simply wrong to drop the prosecution.
You’ve broken so many hearts with that post.
I'm sorry but if this was not the case Starmer would never have agreed to publish the witness statements. They make it clear where the fault lies and destroy the argument that the government inadvertently or otherwise simply did not provide the required information. They did.
Reportedly the Kstovo oil refinery has been hit for the second time this month.
I make that eight strikes against Russian oil refineries in 16 days of October, so an average of one every two days. They didn't manage to sustain what looked like an increased rate at the start of the month.
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
But....
Starmer's story is that everyone did as they should and it's the Tories who are to blame.
Well the rather less plausible Tory Story is it's nefarious Starmer leaning on the CPS for fear of China and now lying about it.
@DavidL has made a very informative post from a legal perspective, a little down thread.
Yes seen that. CPS with Qs to A.
Although whenever we find fault with the CPS don't we always reach the conclusion that blame rests with DPP Starmer?
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
But....
Starmer's story is that everyone did as they should and it's the Tories who are to blame.
Well the rather less plausible Tory Story is it's nefarious Starmer leaning on the CPS for fear of China and now lying about it.
@DavidL has made a very informative post from a legal perspective, a little down thread.
Yes seen that. CPS with Qs to A.
Although whenever we find fault with the CPS don't we always reach the conclusion that blame rests with DPP Starmer?
If Starmer had been in charge the matter would not have crossed his desk
And while everyone is looking at the dead cat in the room, the questions that should be being asked about the Mandelson debacle aren't being asked. There is enough shit therein to collapse the Govt and no doubt senior government people of all persuasions.
You keep saying this, but what’s the background and are there any links to the story?
Surely the likes to the American weinsten and what went over many years ... where do you start
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
But....
Starmer's story is that everyone did as they should and it's the Tories who are to blame.
Well the rather less plausible Tory Story is it's nefarious Starmer leaning on the CPS for fear of China and now lying about it.
@DavidL has made a very informative post from a legal perspective, a little down thread.
Yes seen that. CPS with Qs to A.
Although whenever we find fault with the CPS don't we always reach the conclusion that blame rests with DPP Starmer?
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
About the only person I have seen worth following on this is David Allen Green, who, IMO brings us up to date as far as can be done today:
The only thing I would add is that in guessing what lies behind it all, Ockham's razor + common sense + cockup + our dependence on China + the need to complexify and spread possible blame fairly thinly between anyone who matters, supplies the necessary material.
That's kind of what I expected following the exchanges at PMQs yesterday. I think it is tolerably clear that it is the DPP and the CPS that have got questions to answer here, not the government. Starmer confused things somewhat moaning about the delay in bring the 2023 Act into force but that really is not the point. The point is that there was sufficient evidence to meet the 1911 test at the time of charging AND at the time the decision was made not to proceed. The CPS were simply wrong to drop the prosecution.
You’ve broken so many hearts with that post.
I'm sorry but if this was not the case Starmer would never have agreed to publish the witness statements. They make it clear where the fault lies and destroy the argument that the government inadvertently or otherwise simply did not provide the required information. They did.
Is that strictly true? Isn't the point that the CPS had a strong enough case without any input from the current Government, irrespective of whether the Government were protecting a national interest regarding trade and geo-politics by not committing to China's status as a pariah state?
That being so the best hope for PB Tories is that they can prove Starmer in some way misled the House at PMQs.
I don't think it would be possible for Keir Starmer to mislead the house at PMQs. He prevaricates, obfuscates, denies the self-evident whenever he opens his gob. To mislead you have to say something with the wilful intention to deceive. Thus when a PBer says look at that flock of flying pigs over there they do not intend the reader to believe there is an actual flock of flying pigs, not even Leon in his cups does that. When Starmer speaks he does not even have the decency to care whether the hearer believes him or not and he never intends to be believed. Thus he might well have lied to the house, that is his stock in trade. But he misleads no-one, to do that you have to have an inherent credibility. He does not.
And while everyone is looking at the dead cat in the room, the questions that should be being asked about the Mandelson debacle aren't being asked. There is enough shit therein to collapse the Govt and no doubt senior government people of all persuasions.
You keep saying this, but what’s the background and are there any links to the story?
Surely the likes to the American weinsten and what went over many years ... where do you start
I'm not sure, but you would definitely end with a question mark.
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
15%, is that a record poll for a sitting government?
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
15%, is that a record poll for a sitting government?
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
But....
Starmer's story is that everyone did as they should and it's the Tories who are to blame.
Well the rather less plausible Tory Story is it's nefarious Starmer leaning on the CPS for fear of China and now lying about it.
@DavidL has made a very informative post from a legal perspective, a little down thread.
Yes seen that. CPS with Qs to A.
Although whenever we find fault with the CPS don't we always reach the conclusion that blame rests with DPP Starmer?
If Starmer had been in charge the matter would not have crossed his desk
Ah yes, quantum translocation, isn't that what he and Rachel Reeves got one of their Nobel Physics prizes for ?
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
Broken, sleazy Labour on the... in fourth place????
And while everyone is looking at the dead cat in the room, the questions that should be being asked about the Mandelson debacle aren't being asked. There is enough shit therein to collapse the Govt and no doubt senior government people of all persuasions.
You keep saying this, but what’s the background and are there any links to the story?
Surely the likes to the American weinsten and what went over many years ... where do you start
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
I see two other possibilities if we're in 'more than meets the eye' mode.
The CPS are lying and they dropped the case not because they thought they'd lose it but because the government (this government) wanted it dropped so as not to jeopardise relations with China.
The CPS are not lying but they've made a bad judgement call. Either there was in fact enough evidence that the previous government had designated China a national security threat, or alternatively they could probably have won the case without it.
We'd have a very big and quite big scandal respectively if either of these emerge as being true. I'd be surprised, personally, but let's see where it goes.
I take it you haven’t read David Allen Green’s post. Where he clear shows that CPS were initially trying to prosecute using a law that wasn’t in place at the time the offences were committed.
Hadn't but now have. He seems to be postulating conspiracy with a potential assist from cock-up.
That's very much the PB Tory interpretation. I thought he cleared quite a lot up and his criticism is now levelled more at the CPS than anyone else.
The post I read ended with a steer to something untoward having happened that isn't being disclosed. Does he mean just at the CPS then by your reading?
My interpretation is the CPS have asked for evidence they don't need to successfully prosecute the case. He also suggests that the Government was under no obligation not to decline to answer. I read it that the case was collapsed by an error by the CPS rather than by the Government protecting their political and trading interests with China ( which it is clear, for pragmatic reasons, they were). You can conclude the Government were being shifty, but their evidence was not imperative to prosecute the case.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CPS cock-up and government not heartbroken by the outcome.
But....
Starmer's story is that everyone did as they should and it's the Tories who are to blame.
Well the rather less plausible Tory Story is it's nefarious Starmer leaning on the CPS for fear of China and now lying about it.
@DavidL has made a very informative post from a legal perspective, a little down thread.
Yes seen that. CPS with Qs to A.
Although whenever we find fault with the CPS don't we always reach the conclusion that blame rests with DPP Starmer?
If Starmer had been in charge the matter would not have crossed his desk
Ah yes, quantum translocation, isn't that what he and Rachel Reeves got one of their Nobel Physics prizes for ?
I believe Keir got his for services to the children of toolmakers. Reeves was a straightforward Nobel Prize for Underwhelmingness
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
About the only person I have seen worth following on this is David Allen Green, who, IMO brings us up to date as far as can be done today:
The only thing I would add is that in guessing what lies behind it all, Ockham's razor + common sense + cockup + our dependence on China + the need to complexify and spread possible blame fairly thinly between anyone who matters, supplies the necessary material.
That's kind of what I expected following the exchanges at PMQs yesterday. I think it is tolerably clear that it is the DPP and the CPS that have got questions to answer here, not the government. Starmer confused things somewhat moaning about the delay in bring the 2023 Act into force but that really is not the point. The point is that there was sufficient evidence to meet the 1911 test at the time of charging AND at the time the decision was made not to proceed. The CPS were simply wrong to drop the prosecution.
You’ve broken so many hearts with that post.
I'm sorry but if this was not the case Starmer would never have agreed to publish the witness statements. They make it clear where the fault lies and destroy the argument that the government inadvertently or otherwise simply did not provide the required information. They did.
Thought and prayers for BJO and Big_G.
Please do not pray for me over this
I have followed the debates live on TV and seen concern across the house, not only from the Conservatives but Lib Dems and Starmer's own side especially from the labour select commitee chairs, Thornberry and Western, who have convened a formal joint select committee inquiry and intend calling the CPS, Collins, and others where the controversy will be interrogated properly
If it is as some on here maintain then Starmer will be vindicated
And by the way it is for opposition to oppose and ask difficult and inconvenient questions and on this they are not just coming from conservatives
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
15%, is that a record poll for a sitting government?
No, Liz Truss holds that record.
Can you point to which poll that was?
Matt Goodwin’s deleted the website but it was a People’s Polling Poll on the 20th of October 2022.
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
Broken, sleazy Labour on the... in fourth place????
If you offered them 15% in Caerphilly, I think they'd bite your hand off!
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
Broken, sleazy Labour on the... in fourth place????
Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority....... (TM Sion Simon)
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
About the only person I have seen worth following on this is David Allen Green, who, IMO brings us up to date as far as can be done today:
The only thing I would add is that in guessing what lies behind it all, Ockham's razor + common sense + cockup + our dependence on China + the need to complexify and spread possible blame fairly thinly between anyone who matters, supplies the necessary material.
That's kind of what I expected following the exchanges at PMQs yesterday. I think it is tolerably clear that it is the DPP and the CPS that have got questions to answer here, not the government. Starmer confused things somewhat moaning about the delay in bring the 2023 Act into force but that really is not the point. The point is that there was sufficient evidence to meet the 1911 test at the time of charging AND at the time the decision was made not to proceed. The CPS were simply wrong to drop the prosecution.
You’ve broken so many hearts with that post.
I'm sorry but if this was not the case Starmer would never have agreed to publish the witness statements. They make it clear where the fault lies and destroy the argument that the government inadvertently or otherwise simply did not provide the required information. They did.
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
15%, is that a record poll for a sitting government?
No, Liz Truss holds that record.
Can you point to which poll that was?
Matt Goodwin’s deleted the website but it was a People’s Polling Poll on the 20th of October 2022.
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
15%, is that a record poll for a sitting government?
No, Liz Truss holds that record.
Can you point to which poll that was?
Matt Goodwin’s deleted the website but it was a People’s Polling Poll on the 20th of October 2022.
The worst non Goodwin poll for a government was the EC/FoN MRP 15% 24th June 2024
The worst poll for a government outside an election campaign (and excluding the PP Truss) was Teresa May hitting 17% twice after her resignation announcement (YG and Opinium) followed by 18% Brown Jun 2009 MORI and 2 x 18% YG for Rishi in 2024 pre election calling
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
15%, is that a record poll for a sitting government?
No, Liz Truss holds that record.
Can you point to which poll that was?
Matt Goodwin’s deleted the website but it was a People’s Polling Poll on the 20th of October 2022.
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
About the only person I have seen worth following on this is David Allen Green, who, IMO brings us up to date as far as can be done today:
The only thing I would add is that in guessing what lies behind it all, Ockham's razor + common sense + cockup + our dependence on China + the need to complexify and spread possible blame fairly thinly between anyone who matters, supplies the necessary material.
That's kind of what I expected following the exchanges at PMQs yesterday. I think it is tolerably clear that it is the DPP and the CPS that have got questions to answer here, not the government. Starmer confused things somewhat moaning about the delay in bring the 2023 Act into force but that really is not the point. The point is that there was sufficient evidence to meet the 1911 test at the time of charging AND at the time the decision was made not to proceed. The CPS were simply wrong to drop the prosecution.
You’ve broken so many hearts with that post.
I'm sorry but if this was not the case Starmer would never have agreed to publish the witness statements. They make it clear where the fault lies and destroy the argument that the government inadvertently or otherwise simply did not provide the required information. They did.
I’m sorry that those people don’t bet.
How come two trained and experienced legal minds can contradict an entire platoon of PB barrack room lawyers?
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
Broken, sleazy Labour on the... in fourth place????
If you offered them 15% in Caerphilly, I think they'd bite your hand off!
If yiu offered the Welsh Cons their deposit back they'd bank
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
About the only person I have seen worth following on this is David Allen Green, who, IMO brings us up to date as far as can be done today:
The only thing I would add is that in guessing what lies behind it all, Ockham's razor + common sense + cockup + our dependence on China + the need to complexify and spread possible blame fairly thinly between anyone who matters, supplies the necessary material.
That's kind of what I expected following the exchanges at PMQs yesterday. I think it is tolerably clear that it is the DPP and the CPS that have got questions to answer here, not the government. Starmer confused things somewhat moaning about the delay in bring the 2023 Act into force but that really is not the point. The point is that there was sufficient evidence to meet the 1911 test at the time of charging AND at the time the decision was made not to proceed. The CPS were simply wrong to drop the prosecution.
You’ve broken so many hearts with that post.
I'm sorry but if this was not the case Starmer would never have agreed to publish the witness statements. They make it clear where the fault lies and destroy the argument that the government inadvertently or otherwise simply did not provide the required information. They did.
Thought and prayers for BJO and Big_G.
Please do not pray for me over this
I have followed the debates live on TV and seen concern across the house, not only from the Conservatives but Lib Dems and Starmer's own side especially from the labour select commitee chairs, Thornberry and Western, who have convened a formal joint select committee inquiry and intend calling the CPS, Collins, and others where the controversy will be interrogated properly
If it is as some on here maintain then Starmer will be vindicated
And by the way it is for opposition to oppose and ask difficult and inconvenient questions and on this they are not just coming from conservatives
Just gently ribbing you, Big_G.
(Unironically) your attention to honesty in government actually does you great credit.
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
Broken, sleazy Labour on the... in fourth place????
Baxtered, that gives Reform 434 seats and a majority of 218, with LD forming the official opposition on 57; SNP on 45, Lab on 38, Con on 31 and Green on 19.
Ref gain Bootle. Indeed, Ref gain the whole of Merseyside except Wavertree and Sefton Central; and the whole of GM except Cheadle, Rusholme and Withington.
Chasing Reform voters has now seen Labour drop to 15% . At what point will the penny drop in no 10 or will they wait to they’re barely breaking double digits .
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
About the only person I have seen worth following on this is David Allen Green, who, IMO brings us up to date as far as can be done today:
The only thing I would add is that in guessing what lies behind it all, Ockham's razor + common sense + cockup + our dependence on China + the need to complexify and spread possible blame fairly thinly between anyone who matters, supplies the necessary material.
That's kind of what I expected following the exchanges at PMQs yesterday. I think it is tolerably clear that it is the DPP and the CPS that have got questions to answer here, not the government. Starmer confused things somewhat moaning about the delay in bring the 2023 Act into force but that really is not the point. The point is that there was sufficient evidence to meet the 1911 test at the time of charging AND at the time the decision was made not to proceed. The CPS were simply wrong to drop the prosecution.
You’ve broken so many hearts with that post.
I'm sorry but if this was not the case Starmer would never have agreed to publish the witness statements. They make it clear where the fault lies and destroy the argument that the government inadvertently or otherwise simply did not provide the required information. They did.
Thought and prayers for BJO and Big_G.
Please do not pray for me over this
I have followed the debates live on TV and seen concern across the house, not only from the Conservatives but Lib Dems and Starmer's own side especially from the labour select commitee chairs, Thornberry and Western, who have convened a formal joint select committee inquiry and intend calling the CPS, Collins, and others where the controversy will be interrogated properly
If it is as some on here maintain then Starmer will be vindicated
And by the way it is for opposition to oppose and ask difficult and inconvenient questions and on this they are not just coming from conservatives
Just gently ribbing you, Big_G.
(Unironically) your attention to honesty in government actually does you great credit.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 14m Labour drop below the Tories for the first time. Say it again. Starmer’s position is becoming politically untenable.
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
About the only person I have seen worth following on this is David Allen Green, who, IMO brings us up to date as far as can be done today:
The only thing I would add is that in guessing what lies behind it all, Ockham's razor + common sense + cockup + our dependence on China + the need to complexify and spread possible blame fairly thinly between anyone who matters, supplies the necessary material.
That's kind of what I expected following the exchanges at PMQs yesterday. I think it is tolerably clear that it is the DPP and the CPS that have got questions to answer here, not the government. Starmer confused things somewhat moaning about the delay in bring the 2023 Act into force but that really is not the point. The point is that there was sufficient evidence to meet the 1911 test at the time of charging AND at the time the decision was made not to proceed. The CPS were simply wrong to drop the prosecution.
You’ve broken so many hearts with that post.
I'm sorry but if this was not the case Starmer would never have agreed to publish the witness statements. They make it clear where the fault lies and destroy the argument that the government inadvertently or otherwise simply did not provide the required information. They did.
Thought and prayers for BJO and Big_G.
Please do not pray for me over this
I have followed the debates live on TV and seen concern across the house, not only from the Conservatives but Lib Dems and Starmer's own side especially from the labour select commitee chairs, Thornberry and Western, who have convened a formal joint select committee inquiry and intend calling the CPS, Collins, and others where the controversy will be interrogated properly
If it is as some on here maintain then Starmer will be vindicated
And by the way it is for opposition to oppose and ask difficult and inconvenient questions and on this they are not just coming from conservatives
Just gently ribbing you, Big_G.
(Unironically) your attention to honesty in government actually does you great credit.
You owe the man a beer and a curry! 😉
TBF he called Rayner and Mandelson right. He may be on a hat trick.
Chasing Reform voters has now seen Labour drop to 15% . At what point will the penny drop in no 10 or will they wait to they’re barely breaking double digits .
Shabana Mahmood's comments paraphrasing (And only just) regarding the lack of celebration over Trump's Gaza deal will have won the left back I think though.
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
Makes you wonder what Labour would be on without the Greater London public sector vote. 🙂
Apols if posted earlier (couldn't see it) Labour in fourth on their lowest ever share in a poll (they are behind Greens before rounding) Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-) 🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-) 🟢 Greens: 15% (-) 🔴 Labour: 15% (-2) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
Changes from 8th October [Find Out Now, 15th October, N=2,705]
All hail Zack.
To listen to some he has had a terrible fortnight lol
He's done a grand job of killing off Sultanarama.
Just a pity we no longer have an environmentalist party.
Chasing Reform voters has now seen Labour drop to 15% . At what point will the penny drop in no 10 or will they wait to they’re barely breaking double digits .
Shabana Mahmood's comments paraphrasing (And only just) regarding the lack of celebration over Trump's Gaza deal will have won the left back I think though.
The silence of the “Palestine” mob this week has been astonishing.
Either they’re paid protesters, as with many in the US, or “Peace” was never their actual objective.
Perhaps they don’t want to see Trump take the credit, or perhaps they just hate the Jews.
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
About the only person I have seen worth following on this is David Allen Green, who, IMO brings us up to date as far as can be done today:
The only thing I would add is that in guessing what lies behind it all, Ockham's razor + common sense + cockup + our dependence on China + the need to complexify and spread possible blame fairly thinly between anyone who matters, supplies the necessary material.
That's kind of what I expected following the exchanges at PMQs yesterday. I think it is tolerably clear that it is the DPP and the CPS that have got questions to answer here, not the government. Starmer confused things somewhat moaning about the delay in bring the 2023 Act into force but that really is not the point. The point is that there was sufficient evidence to meet the 1911 test at the time of charging AND at the time the decision was made not to proceed. The CPS were simply wrong to drop the prosecution.
You’ve broken so many hearts with that post.
I'm sorry but if this was not the case Starmer would never have agreed to publish the witness statements. They make it clear where the fault lies and destroy the argument that the government inadvertently or otherwise simply did not provide the required information. They did.
Thought and prayers for BJO and Big_G.
Please do not pray for me over this
I have followed the debates live on TV and seen concern across the house, not only from the Conservatives but Lib Dems and Starmer's own side especially from the labour select commitee chairs, Thornberry and Western, who have convened a formal joint select committee inquiry and intend calling the CPS, Collins, and others where the controversy will be interrogated properly
If it is as some on here maintain then Starmer will be vindicated
And by the way it is for opposition to oppose and ask difficult and inconvenient questions and on this they are not just coming from conservatives
Just gently ribbing you, Big_G.
(Unironically) your attention to honesty in government actually does you great credit.
You owe the man a beer and a curry! 😉
TBF he called Rayner and Mandelson right. He may be on a hat trick.
@DPJHodges Government sources insisting Ministers did not lie over nature of Collins evidence because they didn’t see it until yesterday. Which basically comes down to your interpretation of what a lie is. My view is the Starmer and Jarvis statements were. Others may be more charitable.
It sounds like they're admitting that the Tories aren't to blame. But, what made them think the Tories were to blame in the first place? Did they not ask what had happened? All very odd.
"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed." I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system. What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.
The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.
But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).
I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.
About the only person I have seen worth following on this is David Allen Green, who, IMO brings us up to date as far as can be done today:
The only thing I would add is that in guessing what lies behind it all, Ockham's razor + common sense + cockup + our dependence on China + the need to complexify and spread possible blame fairly thinly between anyone who matters, supplies the necessary material.
That's kind of what I expected following the exchanges at PMQs yesterday. I think it is tolerably clear that it is the DPP and the CPS that have got questions to answer here, not the government. Starmer confused things somewhat moaning about the delay in bring the 2023 Act into force but that really is not the point. The point is that there was sufficient evidence to meet the 1911 test at the time of charging AND at the time the decision was made not to proceed. The CPS were simply wrong to drop the prosecution.
You’ve broken so many hearts with that post.
I'm sorry but if this was not the case Starmer would never have agreed to publish the witness statements. They make it clear where the fault lies and destroy the argument that the government inadvertently or otherwise simply did not provide the required information. They did.
Thought and prayers for BJO and Big_G.
Please do not pray for me over this
I have followed the debates live on TV and seen concern across the house, not only from the Conservatives but Lib Dems and Starmer's own side especially from the labour select commitee chairs, Thornberry and Western, who have convened a formal joint select committee inquiry and intend calling the CPS, Collins, and others where the controversy will be interrogated properly
If it is as some on here maintain then Starmer will be vindicated
And by the way it is for opposition to oppose and ask difficult and inconvenient questions and on this they are not just coming from conservatives
Just gently ribbing you, Big_G.
(Unironically) your attention to honesty in government actually does you great credit.
Thank you and I am used to having beer and curry thrown at me on this board (not literally)
I know crossbreaks are close to heresy in here but indulge me ! In the FON poll.
Labour are behind Reform in London 22% to 24% .
FON are either polling methodology outliers who are wrong, or they are right and everyone else is wrong. @TSE has said their voter intention figure includes voters who only voted in Brexit and 2019 but have not done so otherwise since 2001. So they don't filter out respondents who ordinarily don't vote. I think that is right.
Chasing Reform voters has now seen Labour drop to 15% . At what point will the penny drop in no 10 or will they wait to they’re barely breaking double digits .
Shabana Mahmood's comments paraphrasing (And only just) regarding the lack of celebration over Trump's Gaza deal will have won the left back I think though.
The silence of the “Palestine” mob this week has been astonishing.
Either they’re paid protesters, as with many in the US, or “Peace” was never their actual objective.
Perhaps they don’t want to see Trump take the credit, or perhaps they just hate the Jews.
You do realise "paid protestors" is an anti-Semitic trope?
One of Trump's election pledges was to stop sending US money abroad - to Ukraine, to China (via trade), in Aid to poor countries.
I know that this is more a bailout of an American hedge fund friend of Trump's than of Argentina, but is this potentially a lot more damaging to Trump than most of the things that have upset people who were already anti-Trump?
What is America First about bailing out Argentina to the tune of $40bn and counting?
Comments
There’s probably more than 57 High Streets in the UK with two PP shops, that they opened purely for the FOBTs, so it’s not as bad as it sounds - apart from the staff who lose jobs of course.
FTFYNC
Is this the first poll to put labour below the conservatives?
Starmer's story is that everyone did as they should and it's the Tories who are to blame.
Never.
Wouldn't it be more difficult to find when he disnt lie?
I bet you thought that when Peter Hain was forced to resign after the BBC headlined him every day for ten days during the New Labour Government. Chris Mason had the bit between his teeth yesterday.
There may be an element to that. But I think by going hard on this being solely a Tory error when there are so many other moving parts here, he has created a political storm of his own making.
Find Out Now had Con ahead of Lab once in Nov, once in Dec and twice in Jan, not since then though
Starmer’s lawyerly instincts coming to the fore again, as he thinks that undocumented meetings mean that he can deny all knowledge of the actual process.
We are the State, so an attack on us is an attack on the State?
All we need to add is “C'est par mon ordre et pour le bien de l'Etat que le porteur du present a fait ce qu'il a fait.”
British Intelligence found him, and co-opted him to deceive the Germans further.
IIRC he retired after the war, rather wealthy, with a nice collection of medals from both sides.
To listen to some he has had a terrible fortnight lol
https://x.com/bohuslavskakate/status/1978785184435646533
Today’s bingo card is Lukoil Kstovo. Someone needs to tell them to stop dropping cigarettes.
Her lowest otherwise was 19%
That being so the best hope for PB Tories is that they can prove Starmer in some way misled the House at PMQs.
Just a pity we no longer have an environmentalist party.
I have followed the debates live on TV and seen concern across the house, not only from the Conservatives but Lib Dems and Starmer's own side especially from the labour select commitee chairs, Thornberry and Western, who have convened a formal joint select committee inquiry and intend calling the CPS, Collins, and others where the controversy will be interrogated properly
If it is as some on here maintain then Starmer will be vindicated
And by the way it is for opposition to oppose and ask difficult and inconvenient questions and on this they are not just coming from conservatives
It shows in the wiki table
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://x.com/darthputinkgb/status/1978750790945714670
Day 1329 of my 3 day war. This war has left the russian navy with submarines that can't sink and ships that can't float.
I remain a master strategist.
Archive.org link to the PDF. You want Page 3.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5351605/#Comment_5351605
The worst poll for a government outside an election campaign (and excluding the PP Truss) was Teresa May hitting 17% twice after her resignation announcement (YG and Opinium) followed by 18% Brown Jun 2009 MORI and 2 x 18% YG for Rishi in 2024 pre election calling
(Unironically) your attention to honesty in government actually does you great credit.
Ref gain Bootle. Indeed, Ref gain the whole of Merseyside except Wavertree and Sefton Central; and the whole of GM except Cheadle, Rusholme and Withington.
Chasing Reform voters has now seen Labour drop to 15% . At what point will the penny drop in no 10 or will they wait to they’re barely breaking double digits .
Polanski will be our first Jewish prime minister since Disraeli.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
14m
Labour drop below the Tories for the first time. Say it again. Starmer’s position is becoming politically untenable.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1978818177510387992
TBF he called Rayner and Mandelson right. He may be on a hat trick.
Either they’re paid protesters, as with many in the US, or “Peace” was never their actual objective.
Perhaps they don’t want to see Trump take the credit, or perhaps they just hate the Jews.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1978817658150633873
@DPJHodges
Government sources insisting Ministers did not lie over nature of Collins evidence because they didn’t see it until yesterday. Which basically comes down to your interpretation of what a lie is. My view is the Starmer and Jarvis statements were. Others may be more charitable.
It sounds like they're admitting that the Tories aren't to blame. But, what made them think the Tories were to blame in the first place? Did they not ask what had happened? All very odd.
Labour are behind Reform in London 22% to 24% .
The Trump administration is doubling its Argentina bailout to $40 billion.
https://x.com/MorePerfectUS/status/1978506855090430229
I know that this is more a bailout of an American hedge fund friend of Trump's than of Argentina, but is this potentially a lot more damaging to Trump than most of the things that have upset people who were already anti-Trump?
What is America First about bailing out Argentina to the tune of $40bn and counting?