I mean, c'mon, Ukraine actually invaded Russia, crossing the internationally recognised border of Russia and occupying sovereign Russian territory and there was not a nuclear response. That's where I thought the line was.
I'm supposed to believe that they would have used a nuclear weapon in response to losing Ukrainian territory. It's not credible.
It's depressing how supine some people are. If we take the threat of nuclear armageddon seriously, it gives Putin limitless power to do what he wants. Is that really how we want to live our lives - at the beck and call of this creep?
A line has to be drawn somewhere.
But we have drawn a line. It is called nato
The Russians have repeatedly entered NATO airspace. Airports have been closed due to drone interference, and Russian ships are surveying our undersea cables while pinging lasers at RAF pilots.
They are trying to assassinate the CEOs of NATO defence companies, and they killed a British citizen using a nerve agent which they spread all over an English city.
What line?
Our failure to properly police that line is a separate failing and one that continues to undermine our security. But it does not mean we should blindly deflect the possible existential risk if the west precipitated the collapse of the Russian state. That we got through 1991 unscathed does not mean we should assume such messy political transitions within nuclear superpowers is without risk.
I can't follow your argument. Are you now advocating that we should be much more aggressive given these repeated provocations by Russia? If so, I enthusiastically agree. I think there should be a clear, limited and independent response to each to ensure we avoid the deeply uncertain and dangerous situation we now find ourselves in.
E.g. the little green men in Ukraine should have been bombed after MH17 went down, and again after Salisbury. I don't think the 2022 invasion would have happened had we laid that marker down. They certainly haven't messed around with the Turks since 2015.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
Why would MI6 be tapping MPs' phones? Surely that would be MI5?
There's a grey line when it involves foreign entities.
Say MI6 are spying on some Russian spies who are meeting an MP they remain in charge of the operation.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
Why would MI6 be tapping MPs' phones? Surely that would be MI5?
There's a grey line when it involves foreign entities.
Say MI6 are spying on some Russian spies who are meeting an MP they remain in charge of the operation.
Sounds like a mess. I thought MI5 were responsible for counter-espionage in the UK.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Two that we know about.
It's part of a wider issue, that the rules are set up that the relevant minister will act competently, when the minister isn't up to it, the system kinda falls apart.
The issue is the Chinese and Russians have been targeting our MPs (and other elected officials) on a whole new level in recent years.
It has been reported that, during his time as foreign secretary in 2016-18, Johnson lost the confidence of spy chiefs when he “blurted out” classified information about a hostage in Syria during a cabinet meeting, and inadvertently disclosed details of the investigation into the 2013 murder of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed by Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, east London.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Unless there was a reason that Johnson didn't want Mi6 bugging phones.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Unless there was a reason that Johnson didn't want Mi6 bugging phones.
Boris Johnson has told MPs he met Russian oligarch and ex-KGB officer Alexander Lebedev without officials present.
"I have certainly met him without officials," he said. "I met him on a very few occasions."
And when asked if he met the Russian billionaire and former Evening Standard owner while foreign secretary in Italy in 2018, he said he had.
Mr Johnson made Mr Lebedev's son Evgeny a member of the House of Lords.
Controversy surrounds that appointment, since it was alleged - first in a Tortoise Media podcast and then in the Sunday Times - that the peerage was granted despite a warning from the security services that it posed a national security risk.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Two that we know about.
It's part of a wider issue, that the rules are set up that the relevant minister will act competently, when the minister isn't up to it, the system kinda falls apart.
The issue is the Chinese and Russians have been targeting our MPs (and other elected officials) on a whole new level in recent years.
It has been reported that, during his time as foreign secretary in 2016-18, Johnson lost the confidence of spy chiefs when he “blurted out” classified information about a hostage in Syria during a cabinet meeting, and inadvertently disclosed details of the investigation into the 2013 murder of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed by Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, east London.
A cabinet meeting? He "blurted out" something to a cabinet meeting? That would be the highest civil authority in the governance of this country? This is just so ridiculous I don't know where to start.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Two that we know about.
It's part of a wider issue, that the rules are set up that the relevant minister will act competently, when the minister isn't up to it, the system kinda falls apart.
The issue is the Chinese and Russians have been targeting our MPs (and other elected officials) on a whole new level in recent years.
It has been reported that, during his time as foreign secretary in 2016-18, Johnson lost the confidence of spy chiefs when he “blurted out” classified information about a hostage in Syria during a cabinet meeting, and inadvertently disclosed details of the investigation into the 2013 murder of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed by Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, east London.
That's disgraceful. We can't have the cabinet knowing things.
Aston Villa are 19.5 to win this season's Premier League on Betfair.
I think this is an excellent trading bet.
Sky are going to empty their metaphorical nutsacks if the title race goes down to the final day and City & Villa are the title contenders as City v Villa is the last game of the season.
Excellent value, their odds have come in considerably after the Chelsea win. Arsenal have a tougher set of fixtures in January, Man City play Man utd and both have league cup semi finals/CL matches upcoming.
Villa have Forest (H), Palace (A), Everton (H) Newcastle (A) in January. If they can hold off Arsenal in their last match this year, they're in a fantastic position
I also like the look of Sunderland to finish in top half of the league, they are currently 10/1 to finish top 6 with Ladbrokes
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Unless there was a reason that Johnson didn't want Mi6 bugging phones.
It's really hard to imagine what kind of democrat might have reservations about the Intelligence Services bugging the phones of elected MPs, isn't it?
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Two that we know about.
It's part of a wider issue, that the rules are set up that the relevant minister will act competently, when the minister isn't up to it, the system kinda falls apart.
The issue is the Chinese and Russians have been targeting our MPs (and other elected officials) on a whole new level in recent years.
It has been reported that, during his time as foreign secretary in 2016-18, Johnson lost the confidence of spy chiefs when he “blurted out” classified information about a hostage in Syria during a cabinet meeting, and inadvertently disclosed details of the investigation into the 2013 murder of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed by Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, east London.
That's disgraceful. We can't have the cabinet knowing things.
Giving information to Moscow is serious - but then, giving information to anyone is serious. In fact, giving information to the cabinet might be more serious than giving it to Moscow.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Unless there was a reason that Johnson didn't want Mi6 bugging phones.
It's really hard to imagine what kind of democrat might have reservations about the Intelligence Services bugging the phones of elected MPs, isn't it?
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Unless there was a reason that Johnson didn't want Mi6 bugging phones.
It's really hard to imagine what kind of democrat might have reservations about the Intelligence Services bugging the phones of elected MPs, isn't it?
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Two that we know about.
It's part of a wider issue, that the rules are set up that the relevant minister will act competently, when the minister isn't up to it, the system kinda falls apart.
The issue is the Chinese and Russians have been targeting our MPs (and other elected officials) on a whole new level in recent years.
It has been reported that, during his time as foreign secretary in 2016-18, Johnson lost the confidence of spy chiefs when he “blurted out” classified information about a hostage in Syria during a cabinet meeting, and inadvertently disclosed details of the investigation into the 2013 murder of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed by Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, east London.
A cabinet meeting? He "blurted out" something to a cabinet meeting? That would be the highest civil authority in the governance of this country? This is just so ridiculous I don't know where to start.
I'm inclined to agree, though the idea that cabinet is an appropriate place to disclose senstive classified information is wrong. I think there are up to 40 people in the room for full cabinet, and I wouldn't be surprised if most of those there do not have the appropriate clearance.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Unless there was a reason that Johnson didn't want Mi6 bugging phones.
It's really hard to imagine what kind of democrat might have reservations about the Intelligence Services bugging the phones of elected MPs, isn't it?
Aston Villa are 19.5 to win this season's Premier League on Betfair.
I think this is an excellent trading bet.
Sky are going to empty their metaphorical nutsacks if the title race goes down to the final day and City & Villa are the title contenders as City v Villa is the last game of the season.
Excellent value, their odds have come in considerably after the Chelsea win. Arsenal have a tougher set of fixtures in January, Man City play Man utd and both have league cup semi finals/CL matches upcoming.
Villa have Forest (H), Palace (A), Everton (H) Newcastle (A) in January. If they can hold off Arsenal in their last match this year, they're in a fantastic position
I also like the look of Sunderland to finish in top half of the league, they are currently 10/1 to finish top 6 with Ladbrokes
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
Neither of these stories have the weight or heft to seriously damage Starmer in my view. Both demonstrate that our PM and several of his cabinet colleagues are not fit to run a bath but it is a part of the background grumble of discontent at their incompetence, not a killer blow. The May elections are when he will be seriously at risk.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Two that we know about.
It's part of a wider issue, that the rules are set up that the relevant minister will act competently, when the minister isn't up to it, the system kinda falls apart.
The issue is the Chinese and Russians have been targeting our MPs (and other elected officials) on a whole new level in recent years.
It has been reported that, during his time as foreign secretary in 2016-18, Johnson lost the confidence of spy chiefs when he “blurted out” classified information about a hostage in Syria during a cabinet meeting, and inadvertently disclosed details of the investigation into the 2013 murder of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed by Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, east London.
A cabinet meeting? He "blurted out" something to a cabinet meeting? That would be the highest civil authority in the governance of this country? This is just so ridiculous I don't know where to start.
I'm inclined to agree, though the idea that cabinet is an appropriate place to disclose senstive classified information is wrong. I think there are up to 40 people in the room for full cabinet, and I wouldn't be surprised if most of those there do not have the appropriate clearance.
More importantly, if this idea of telling politicians things catches on, they might try and run the country.
Can’t have elected people running the country - that would risk democracy as we know it!
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
From what I have seen on PB tonight (never having heard of this chap before) Starmer is demonstrating real commitment to freedom of speech. J D Vance must be applauding.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
Labour being patsies for foreign extremists is priced in. The biggest loser from the story is Cleverly. Difficult to say what it does for Badenoch. Keeps the Tory brand in the toilet but takes out a rival.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Two that we know about.
It's part of a wider issue, that the rules are set up that the relevant minister will act competently, when the minister isn't up to it, the system kinda falls apart.
The issue is the Chinese and Russians have been targeting our MPs (and other elected officials) on a whole new level in recent years. ker It has been reported that, during his time as foreign secretary in 2016-18, Johnson lost the confidence of spy chiefs when he “blurted out” classified information about a hostage in Syria during a cabinet meeting, and inadvertently disclosed details of the investigation into the 2013 murder of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed by Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, east London.
That's disgraceful. We can't have the cabinet knowing things.
Giving information to Moscow is serious - but then, giving information to anyone is serious. In fact, giving information to the cabinet might be more serious than giving it to Moscow.
Sir Arnold Robinson.
I watched an episode of Yes Minster tonight. It really holds up, especially as Jim Hacker got better at the game and occasionally got the better of Sir Humphry. But it was a comedy, not a documentary.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
From what I have seen on PB tonight (never having heard of this chap before) Starmer is demonstrating real commitment to freedom of speech. J D Vance must be applauding.
Maybe Starmer saw Vance invite an al-Qaeda fighter (who fought Americans in Iraq) into the Oval Office and decided to follow his lead.
The story that will finish off Starmer will have to be something unique to his government. Most of the stuff coming out now is still just the legacy of the prior government - including the big one, small boats.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Two that we know about.
It's part of a wider issue, that the rules are set up that the relevant minister will act competently, when the minister isn't up to it, the system kinda falls apart.
The issue is the Chinese and Russians have been targeting our MPs (and other elected officials) on a whole new level in recent years. ker It has been reported that, during his time as foreign secretary in 2016-18, Johnson lost the confidence of spy chiefs when he “blurted out” classified information about a hostage in Syria during a cabinet meeting, and inadvertently disclosed details of the investigation into the 2013 murder of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed by Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, east London.
That's disgraceful. We can't have the cabinet knowing things.
Giving information to Moscow is serious - but then, giving information to anyone is serious. In fact, giving information to the cabinet might be more serious than giving it to Moscow.
Sir Arnold Robinson.
I watched an episode of Yes Minster tonight. It really holds up, especially as Jim Hacker got better at the game and occasionally got the better of Sir Humphry. But it was a comedy, not a documentary.
Oddly, almost every plot was based on a real-life incident, mostly from the Wilson government.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
Personally I'm impressed by your predictive capabilities. You suggested a new low, and within hours Starmer had welcomed an Islamic extremist into the country using language suggesting he was the second coming of Terry Waite.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Two that we know about.
It's part of a wider issue, that the rules are set up that the relevant minister will act competently, when the minister isn't up to it, the system kinda falls apart.
The issue is the Chinese and Russians have been targeting our MPs (and other elected officials) on a whole new level in recent years. ker It has been reported that, during his time as foreign secretary in 2016-18, Johnson lost the confidence of spy chiefs when he “blurted out” classified information about a hostage in Syria during a cabinet meeting, and inadvertently disclosed details of the investigation into the 2013 murder of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed by Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, east London.
That's disgraceful. We can't have the cabinet knowing things.
Giving information to Moscow is serious - but then, giving information to anyone is serious. In fact, giving information to the cabinet might be more serious than giving it to Moscow.
Sir Arnold Robinson.
I watched an episode of Yes Minster tonight. It really holds up, especially as Jim Hacker got better at the game and occasionally got the better of Sir Humphry. But it was a comedy, not a documentary.
Oddly, almost every plot was based on a real-life incident, mostly from the Wilson government.
That's probably because the Wilson government was so well covered by the various diarists in the administration. I remember reading the Crossman diaries when bored at University. They were hilarious. Crossman considered himself a heavy weight intellectual but it became obvious to the reader that Wilson simply ran rings around him (and almost everyone else).
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
Labour being patsies for foreign extremists is priced in. The biggest loser from the story is Cleverly. Difficult to say what it does for Badenoch. Keeps the Tory brand in the toilet but takes out a rival.
This story is about even stevens for the Tory brand. What it highlights once again is Cleverly's serious lack of judgement. He let the Foreign Office run him. As a consequence, his pawprints are all over our supine China policy, Chagos, and now this.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Two that we know about.
It's part of a wider issue, that the rules are set up that the relevant minister will act competently, when the minister isn't up to it, the system kinda falls apart.
The issue is the Chinese and Russians have been targeting our MPs (and other elected officials) on a whole new level in recent years. ker It has been reported that, during his time as foreign secretary in 2016-18, Johnson lost the confidence of spy chiefs when he “blurted out” classified information about a hostage in Syria during a cabinet meeting, and inadvertently disclosed details of the investigation into the 2013 murder of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed by Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, east London.
That's disgraceful. We can't have the cabinet knowing things.
Giving information to Moscow is serious - but then, giving information to anyone is serious. In fact, giving information to the cabinet might be more serious than giving it to Moscow.
Sir Arnold Robinson.
I watched an episode of Yes Minster tonight. It really holds up, especially as Jim Hacker got better at the game and occasionally got the better of Sir Humphry. But it was a comedy, not a documentary.
Oddly, almost every plot was based on a real-life incident, mostly from the Wilson government.
The often desperate attempts to control the flow of information to ministers have been documented many times.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Two that we know about.
It's part of a wider issue, that the rules are set up that the relevant minister will act competently, when the minister isn't up to it, the system kinda falls apart.
The issue is the Chinese and Russians have been targeting our MPs (and other elected officials) on a whole new level in recent years. ker It has been reported that, during his time as foreign secretary in 2016-18, Johnson lost the confidence of spy chiefs when he “blurted out” classified information about a hostage in Syria during a cabinet meeting, and inadvertently disclosed details of the investigation into the 2013 murder of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed by Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, east London.
That's disgraceful. We can't have the cabinet knowing things.
Giving information to Moscow is serious - but then, giving information to anyone is serious. In fact, giving information to the cabinet might be more serious than giving it to Moscow.
Sir Arnold Robinson.
I watched an episode of Yes Minster tonight. It really holds up, especially as Jim Hacker got better at the game and occasionally got the better of Sir Humphry. But it was a comedy, not a documentary.
Oddly, almost every plot was based on a real-life incident, mostly from the Wilson government.
That's probably because the Wilson government was so well covered by the various diarists in the administration. I remember reading the Crossman diaries when bored at University. They were hilarious. Crossman considered himself a heavy weight intellectual but it became obvious to the reader that Wilson simply ran rings around him (and almost everyone else).
Not quite - they paid Falkender and Donoghue for the information and worked them up into scripts.
You will be amazed to hear that most of the stories about drunkenness - e.g. the booze in the Qumrani reception - were based on incidents involving George Brown.
Edit - Wilson was never trusted, partly for that reason. He was seen as too clever, too sly, too manipulative. It was said he had only two problems - his face.
Russia is fighting an endless broken backed war, with steady technological regression in its military.
They can’t produce a whole range of military hardware at more than a trickle.
Against a country with a GDP between Morocco and Hungary.
The Soviet Union held together, against all odds - until it swiftly unravelled.
Russia has endured incredible hardship, fighting a pointless war of choice - but at some point, it won’t endure it any further.
They’ll eventually run out of assets to sell cheaply to the Chinese.
These things happen slowly, then very quickly.
PS. I don't want to worry you but there are an awful lot of large cars driving around Cap Ferrat with Ukrainian number plates.
With Russian owners… this has been a known thing since the invasion
For what purpose?
Suddenly discovering that you are a madly pro-Zelensky Ukrainian has the advantage that you might get to keep your yacht.
Presumably the French have ways of knowing what nationality you are. I'm not even sure whether Russians are persona non grata in France. Are they in the UK?
Lots of yachts seized, sanctions etc.
Lots of Russians have Ukrainian relatives, so claiming the passport is possible. For those with enough money, the claims of Ukrainian ancestry can be errr… flexible?
You can buy the ID of a dead Ukrainian (lots to choose from!) for about 4,000 euros on Telegram. Thousands of Russians have done this to get to Western Europe as "refugees". Russians with villa in Juan-les-Pins, yacht and Bentayga money generally go Cypriot or Zionist Entity.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
Anybody still voting for Starmer at this point doesn't give a fuck what he says or does so this makes no difference.
The same fuckstains who were very animated about people getting locked up for things they wrote on social media seem to be very concerned with this guy's history.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
Has anyone read (or seen) Boris Johnson's seminal work on Shakespeare which prevented him from executing his Prime Ministerial duties? I'm sure it's very good.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
I wasn’t saying European politicians haven’t been timid. As I said, someone has to make the political argument, and I wish they were.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
I wasn’t saying European politicians haven’t been timid. As I said, someone has to make the political argument, and I wish they were.
The other calculation is that even if Ukraine did recapture some territory, which obviously is not going to happen, that just increases the size of the rebuilding bill. Every fucked out smouldering ruin of a town recaptured would be another 2bn euros to rebuild. The Ukrainians don't have one kopiyka to scratch their collective arse with, the US certainly aren't going to pay for any of it so it'll be up to the eternally generous tax payers of the EU/UK.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
seems that in Farage's britain just having an arabic name will be enough to assume automatic guilt
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
If it's correct to infer that there's more to it than meets the eye, it wasn't wise for the government to draw so much attention to it.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
If it's correct to infer that there's more to it than meets the eye, it wasn't wise for the government to draw so much attention to it.
i think it's the right wing botosphere that's been getting it's knickers in a twist
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
If it's correct to infer that there's more to it than meets the eye, it wasn't wise for the government to draw so much attention to it.
i think it's the right wing botosphere that's been getting it's knickers in a twist
Multiple tweets from cabinet ministers talking about how it was a top priority for them was asking for it.
Grok has this to say in response to a question as to whether he would be arrested.
"Based on reports, Alaa Abd El-Fattah arrived in the UK on Dec 26, 2025, without arrest. His 2011-2013 tweets, if genuine, include sarcastic remarks (e.g., with smileys) on racism/privilege, which may not meet UK hate speech thresholds under the Public Order Act (requiring intent to stir hatred). Recent arrests targeted incitement during riots. No ongoing probe reported."
I think Grok is contending that it was possibly all banter. Personally I hate banter.
People I worked with who thought they were banter lords were just bullies.
Banter is just en excuse for being an arsehole or mitigating deeply unpleasant comments.
If,people want to see his comments, and there is a pattern here, as banter. So be it.
My Arabic isn’t up to scratch, so can’t be 100% confident of the translation, or context, but…
Getting this bloke here was one of Sir Keir’s priorities
The sayings of Labour’s favourite Egyptian dissident Alaa Abd El-Fattah in English are terrifying, but here’s what he says in Arabic: ‘If we can't kill the officers anyway ... fine. We'll find a terrorist cell to kill their children and torture their mothers. Peaceful is stupid.’
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
If it's correct to infer that there's more to it than meets the eye, it wasn't wise for the government to draw so much attention to it.
i think it's the right wing botosphere that's been getting it's knickers in a twist
Multiple tweets from cabinet ministers talking about how it was a top priority for them was asking for it.
nice to see so many new experts in Egyptian politics
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
I wasn’t saying European politicians haven’t been timid. As I said, someone has to make the political argument, and I wish they were.
The other calculation is that even if Ukraine did recapture some territory, which obviously is not going to happen, that just increases the size of the rebuilding bill. Every fucked out smouldering ruin of a town recaptured would be another 2bn euros to rebuild. The Ukrainians don't have one kopiyka to scratch their collective arse with, the US certainly aren't going to pay for any of it so it'll be up to the eternally generous tax payers of the EU/UK.
If you are thinking of just stealing resources and the population as a drag on that, maybe.
But working in a German bank, I can tell you that “Ukraine after the war” is seen as a huge opportunity - repeat the rise of Poland, Czech Republic etc. Build factories, employ the cheap local labour, ride the boom. A lot of money was made in Germany by doing that in Eastern Europe. Another opportunity to get in on the ground floor would be prized.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
Anybody still voting for Starmer at this point doesn't give a fuck what he says or does so this makes no difference.
The same fuckstains who were very animated about people getting locked up for things they wrote on social media seem to be very concerned with this guy's history.
I wonder whether that has anything to do with Lucy Connelly and Al- Fattah and their relative ethnicities? Asking for a friend.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
I wasn’t saying European politicians haven’t been timid. As I said, someone has to make the political argument, and I wish they were.
The other calculation is that even if Ukraine did recapture some territory, which obviously is not going to happen, that just increases the size of the rebuilding bill. Every fucked out smouldering ruin of a town recaptured would be another 2bn euros to rebuild. The Ukrainians don't have one kopiyka to scratch their collective arse with, the US certainly aren't going to pay for any of it so it'll be up to the eternally generous tax payers of the EU/UK.
Maybe Belgium will allow,the EU to use some of the Russian money seized for this noble task 🤔
Even if the US doesn’t pony up any dosh I’m sure their corporations will benefit from any EU/UK largesse.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
If it's correct to infer that there's more to it than meets the eye, it wasn't wise for the government to draw so much attention to it.
i think it's the right wing botosphere that's been getting it's knickers in a twist
Multiple tweets from cabinet ministers talking about how it was a top priority for them was asking for it.
Fancy people being upset over tweets like this. Beggars belief.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
If it's correct to infer that there's more to it than meets the eye, it wasn't wise for the government to draw so much attention to it.
i think it's the right wing botosphere that's been getting it's knickers in a twist
Multiple tweets from cabinet ministers talking about how it was a top priority for them was asking for it.
Fancy people being upset over tweets like this. Beggars belief.
"US government takes blame for fatal Washington plane crash Air traffic controller and army pilot flying helicopter ‘breached’ duty of care owed by country, says legal filing"
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
If it's correct to infer that there's more to it than meets the eye, it wasn't wise for the government to draw so much attention to it.
i think it's the right wing botosphere that's been getting it's knickers in a twist
Multiple tweets from cabinet ministers talking about how it was a top priority for them was asking for it.
Fancy people being upset over tweets like this. Beggars belief.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
If it's correct to infer that there's more to it than meets the eye, it wasn't wise for the government to draw so much attention to it.
i think it's the right wing botosphere that's been getting it's knickers in a twist
Multiple tweets from cabinet ministers talking about how it was a top priority for them was asking for it.
Fancy people being upset over tweets like this. Beggars belief.
‘Y’all’. Jesus. We’re not in the US on the trailer park.
There’s always a screengrab. To be fair to him he’s been active deleting his tweet history. Can’t say I blame him.
I cannot see how past social media posts can be defended and on Twitter he’s been condemned for it across the political spectrum.
Here, he seems to be revered for what he said, Mind you it’s no surprise when here some people claimed the Epping Hotel sex attacker was a victim of racism.
The more important 'how old I am' metric is how long ago was the first GE you could vote in.
20 years for me.
More important than that - metric-wise - is when did your junior colleagues? Who was their 'first prime minister'? (In more innocent terms - 'who was their first Doctor Who?')
I'm getting to the stage where the first PM they truly remember is David Cameron. Things like #indyref and #brexit are vague news items. A bit like I might have thought on the Winter of Discontent, or the first #indyref, or indeed the 1975 EEC #ref (I'm assuming they didn't have a hashtag, because civilisation was still intact).
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
If it's correct to infer that there's more to it than meets the eye, it wasn't wise for the government to draw so much attention to it.
i think it's the right wing botosphere that's been getting it's knickers in a twist
Multiple tweets from cabinet ministers talking about how it was a top priority for them was asking for it.
Fancy people being upset over tweets like this. Beggars belief.
‘Y’all’. Jesus. We’re not in the US on the trailer park.
There’s always a screengrab. To be fair to him he’s been active deleting his tweet history. Can’t say I blame him.
I cannot see how past social media posts can be defended and on Twitter he’s been condemned for it across the political spectrum.
Here, he seems to be revered for what he said, Mind you it’s no surprise when here some people claimed the Epping Hotel sex attacker was a victim of racism.
The more important 'how old I am' metric is how long ago was the first GE you could vote in.
20 years for me.
More important than that - metric-wise - is when did your junior colleagues? Who was their 'first prime minister'? (In more innocent terms - 'who was their first Doctor Who?')
I'm getting to the stage where the first PM they truly remember is David Cameron. Things like #indyref and #brexit are vague news items. A bit like I might have thought on the Winter of Discontent, or the first #indyref, or indeed the 1975 EEC #ref (I'm assuming they didn't have a hashtag, because civilisation was still intact).
Have you noticed police looking younger too?
Sting doesn’t. He looks about 80.
By first Dr Who do you mean when born or watched ?
I was born in between two episodes of Galaxy 4, first story I remember is Inferno.
"US government takes blame for fatal Washington plane crash Air traffic controller and army pilot flying helicopter ‘breached’ duty of care owed by country, says legal filing"
Interesting us.gov have actually admitted what was quite evident from fairly early in the investigation. It'll cost them a large amount in damages to the families and the airline.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
Labour being patsies for foreign extremists is priced in. The biggest loser from the story is Cleverly. Difficult to say what it does for Badenoch. Keeps the Tory brand in the toilet but takes out a rival.
As I said previously, Cleverly becoming leader would be end the Tory party. He's completely toxic and has a history of making terrible decisions while in government. The Chagos deal commenced because he allowed it to under Liz Truss, Cameron kicked it out when Rishi became PM.
My theory is that Cleverly hasn't got a brain or opinion of his own so is happy to go along with whatever Britain hating nonsense the civil service comes up with without questioning it. He's just a dimwitted passenger unable to or unwilling to realise he's being played by the civil servants who clearly loathe this country and will do whatever they can to hurt its interests.
Those who sneer at media studies should remember that English, when first introduced to universities, was seen as the media studies of its day. Novels were read for pleasure, or for women to discuss in their knitting circles, not the stuff of serious academic enquiry.
Totally off topic, Austin Butler’s recreation of Vegas Elvis is uncanny.
We watched this again tonight, an excellent performance. Liked the bit at the end where they segues into the real Elvis singing Unchained Melody.
We’re going to see the Neil Diamond one in the new year. Looking forward to it.
Elvis – an excellent performance but a disappointing film: the sort of biopic that will in future be scripted by AI reading the subject's Wikipedia page. A dull plod through the fixed points of Elvis's career, with no great insight into, say, Colonel Tom Parker or the army, other than hammering home that Elvis, let us charitably say, borrowed from the Black gospel tradition. I've got the DVD so do not hate Elvis, it is just underwhelming.
Although, come to think of it, I have similar complaints about many biopics. Maybe it is my TikTok-addled mind unable to cope with a 2-hour narrative, just as students of English are said to have trouble with full-length novels. Or perhaps the nagging question, why not a documentary intercut with genuine concert footage?
Totally off topic, Austin Butler’s recreation of Vegas Elvis is uncanny.
We watched this again tonight, an excellent performance. Liked the bit at the end where they segues into the real Elvis singing Unchained Melody.
We’re going to see the Neil Diamond one in the new year. Looking forward to it.
Elvis – an excellent performance but a disappointing film: the sort of biopic that will in future be scripted by AI reading the subject's Wikipedia page. A dull plod through the fixed points of Elvis's career, with no great insight into, say, Colonel Tom Parker or the army, other than hammering home that Elvis, let us charitably say, borrowed from the Black gospel tradition. I've got the DVD so do not hate Elvis, it is just underwhelming.
Although, come to think of it, I have similar complaints about many biopics. Maybe it is my TikTok-addled mind unable to cope with a 2-hour narrative, just as students of English are said to have trouble with full-length novels. Or perhaps the nagging question, why not a documentary intercut with genuine concert footage?
"why not a documentary intercut with genuine concert footage?"
Usually too expensive - documentaries generally hav tiny budgets by movie standards. Or they may not like the angle the documenry is taking.
I think there was a documenatary released about Hendrix that had no authorisation from his estate to use any images of him or any of his music.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
If it's correct to infer that there's more to it than meets the eye, it wasn't wise for the government to draw so much attention to it.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, you had a pop at me yesterday when I offered my thoughts but this confirms my hypothesis the "plan" in the West is to help Ukraine not lose and ensure Russia doesn't win - I also suspect the Chinese and others are playing the same game the opposite way - so the stalemate, the attrition and the death continues.
As I also said yesterday, how does this end? Even if we are able (via aid alone) to prevent a Ukrainian defeat, what would a Russian defeat mean? Regime change? From Putin to what? Another hardliner, perhaps even more determined to seek a military solution or a pragmatist who might accept the short term reverse (which he can blame on Putin) in favour of a period of replenishment and another round 5-10 years down the line?
Yes, we can all hope a post-Putin Russia will come back "to the light" and repudiate China and take a more pro-western line but is that in any way realistic? Not on day one, perhaps but over time, who knows? Do we one day want NATO troops (including Russians) on the Mongolian border facing the PLA?
On the point of escalation, you'd better believe it worries me - personally I don't believe for a second Putin and his followers would want to see their lifestyle erased in a moment but everyone knows you don't let that genie out of the bottle.
I disagreed with you, it wasn't meant to be taken as a pop at you.
I think we have a serious problem in that we've allowed the fear of escalation to become too one-sided. We worry about it much more than the Russians do.
This is a very dangerous dynamic because it emboldens Putin to push it further and further. We need to even this up a bit.
I also think there is ample evidence that our fears of escalation have been severely overdone. Putin has experienced numerous major reverses in this war and has not pushed the nuclear button, or responded directly with other escalations. We now have Storm Shadows missiles being used to target Russian oil refineries and the Russians make no response, despite all the dire threats they'd previously made, to give just the most recent example. But they are not at all deterred from taking actions such as destroying the Kakhovka dam.
We also shouldn't worry about the future inside Russia too much. We certainly aren't going to march on Moscow and occupy the country, so what happens to the government of the country is up to them. What we should concern ourselves with is setting limits on what Russia does outside its borders, and we have spent nearly two decades failing to set those boundaries effectively.
This is crucially important as a demonstration to China over the acceptability of its territorial ambitions. A failure to stand up to Russia with sufficient strength sends a signal to China that only encourages them to conclude that we won't stand up to them.
I really think that success or failure in the war between Ukraine and Russia is the fulcrum on which the history of this century will turn.
I stand by my view of yesterday but yes we are here to debate and of course if you disagree that's your right and you expressed your view fairly and reasonably and I'm glad to accept it wasn't personal.
If we are trying to encourage forces within Russia to remove Putin and his clique, fair enough, but I don't think we can be disinterested parties as to the future political direction of Russia. Yes, we can't march on Moscow but it would be so much easier IF the next regime in the Kremlin was less anatagonistic, less in the mindset of Peter The Great and more constructive in its relations.
Setting boundaries isn't just about stick - it also involves carrot and in the West we could and would benefit enormously from a more constructive relationship with Russia and that's what we should be arguing and pushing for a post-Putin rapprochement.
I think we can definitely conclude that the West mishandled the relationship with post-Soviet Russia, and we'd want to do a better job with a post-Ukraine-defeat Russia.
But we have to get to the other side of the Ukraine War before we can do that better or not, and a foundation stone has to be that Russia isn't occupying parts of anyone else's country.
Which also needs to include resolutions in South Ossetia, Transnistria and possibly Chechnya.
Or as it is also known, a cold day in Hell.
Abkhazia, not Chechnya.
No, I meant Chechnya. I'd forgotten about Abkhazia.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
seems that in Farage's britain just having an arabic name will be enough to assume automatic guilt
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
If it's correct to infer that there's more to it than meets the eye, it wasn't wise for the government to draw so much attention to it.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
Labour being patsies for foreign extremists is priced in. The biggest loser from the story is Cleverly. Difficult to say what it does for Badenoch. Keeps the Tory brand in the toilet but takes out a rival.
As I said previously, Cleverly becoming leader would be end the Tory party. He's completely toxic and has a history of making terrible decisions while in government. The Chagos deal commenced because he allowed it to under Liz Truss, Cameron kicked it out when Rishi became PM.
My theory is that Cleverly hasn't got a brain or opinion of his own so is happy to go along with whatever Britain hating nonsense the civil service comes up with without questioning it. He's just a dimwitted passenger unable to or unwilling to realise he's being played by the civil servants who clearly loathe this country and will do whatever they can to hurt its interests.
I absolutely agree with the thrust of this post, but you knew I'd pick this up because it's Rishi-washing - as you always do.
Cleverley commenced these negotiations UNDER SUNAK. Truss had already left office - it doesn't matter if she wanted to give the Chagos back with a free offer of the Channel Islands, she had gone.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
If it's correct to infer that there's more to it than meets the eye, it wasn't wise for the government to draw so much attention to it.
Blue on blue vs Zack Goldsmith. She is Shadow National Security Minister.
“ You were a Minister at the Foreign Office which signed off his getting British citizenship at the very time he was given citizenship.
As for the political elite, you may be, I’m not.
Of course I wasn’t aware of his vile tweets.”
She is utterly useless.
The point more is that it somewhat nullifies the theory he is mi6 and the two arse cheeks have been patriotically protecting an asset.
Looks far more likely to me that a well connected family used every tool at their disposal and got him a passport knowing it would eventually lead to his release. With the organs of the British state so captured by groupthink that they never stopped to consider the wisdom of it all.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
Labour being patsies for foreign extremists is priced in. The biggest loser from the story is Cleverly. Difficult to say what it does for Badenoch. Keeps the Tory brand in the toilet but takes out a rival.
As I said previously, Cleverly becoming leader would be end the Tory party. He's completely toxic and has a history of making terrible decisions while in government. The Chagos deal commenced because he allowed it to under Liz Truss, Cameron kicked it out when Rishi became PM.
My theory is that Cleverly hasn't got a brain or opinion of his own so is happy to go along with whatever Britain hating nonsense the civil service comes up with without questioning it. He's just a dimwitted passenger unable to or unwilling to realise he's being played by the civil servants who clearly loathe this country and will do whatever they can to hurt its interests.
I absolutely agree with the thrust of this post, but you knew I'd pick this up because it's Rishi-washing - as you always do.
Cleverley commenced these negotiations UNDER SUNAK. Truss had already left office - it doesn't matter if she wanted to give the Chagos back with a free offer of the Channel Islands, she had gone.
Rishi called an utterly unexpected snap election the very morning after the Supreme Court told him he had to come clean about the secret mass importation scheme for afghans. Coupled with what he did to our national debt and energy industry as both Chancellor and PM, he ranks substantially below Truss in the all time rankings.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
Labour being patsies for foreign extremists is priced in. The biggest loser from the story is Cleverly. Difficult to say what it does for Badenoch. Keeps the Tory brand in the toilet but takes out a rival.
As I said previously, Cleverly becoming leader would be end the Tory party. He's completely toxic and has a history of making terrible decisions while in government. The Chagos deal commenced because he allowed it to under Liz Truss, Cameron kicked it out when Rishi became PM.
My theory is that Cleverly hasn't got a brain or opinion of his own so is happy to go along with whatever Britain hating nonsense the civil service comes up with without questioning it. He's just a dimwitted passenger unable to or unwilling to realise he's being played by the civil servants who clearly loathe this country and will do whatever they can to hurt its interests.
I absolutely agree with the thrust of this post, but you knew I'd pick this up because it's Rishi-washing - as you always do.
Cleverley commenced these negotiations UNDER SUNAK. Truss had already left office - it doesn't matter if she wanted to give the Chagos back with a free offer of the Channel Islands, she had gone.
Rishi called an utterly unexpected snap election the very morning after the Supreme Court told him he had to come clean about the secret mass importation scheme for afghans. Coupled with what he did to our national debt and energy industry as both Chancellor and PM, he ranks substantially below Truss in the all time rankings.
Tentative conclusion from all of this:
Even if Energetic Bob Jenrick's intention was to fling a small explosive device the way of the present government, it's ended up doing plenty of harm to the previous governing party.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
If it's correct to infer that there's more to it than meets the eye, it wasn't wise for the government to draw so much attention to it.
Blue on blue vs Zack Goldsmith. She is Shadow National Security Minister.
“ You were a Minister at the Foreign Office which signed off his getting British citizenship at the very time he was given citizenship.
As for the political elite, you may be, I’m not.
Of course I wasn’t aware of his vile tweets.”
She is utterly useless.
The point more is that it somewhat nullifies the theory he is mi6 and the two arse cheeks have been patriotically protecting an asset.
Looks far more likely to me that a well connected family used every tool at their disposal and got him a passport knowing it would eventually lead to his release. With the organs of the British state so captured by groupthink that they never stopped to consider the wisdom of it all.
This puzzles me too. If he is 'one of ours' then we should have been (well we shouldn't have had agitators in Egypt anyway - spies should gather intelligence, not foment unrest) quietly using back channels to secure his release and not bragging about it when it happened and bringing it up at every turn.
I wondered if he might be an American asset. Then all the public support for him by our politicians is just coded messages sucking up to Uncle Sam hoping for some sweeties. But the theory doesn't quite explain Starmer's drooling welcome Tweet given that we now have Trump and he won't care about this guy. Perhaps the various US agencies still have links into No. 10 and our Government departments unbenownst to Trump and his team.
The Tories to have posted publicly in support of him so far are Cleverly, Sunak, and Kearns. Very centrist wet bunch from the 'grown ups' wing. Looks like they really shot their own foot off. Oh dear how sad never mind.
Realistically the Tories need a leader untainted from their previous time in government. No idea who that might be because they went through so many ministers by the end there can't be many MPs left.
Just a quick question for PBers getting overexcited tonight.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
If it's correct to infer that there's more to it than meets the eye, it wasn't wise for the government to draw so much attention to it.
Blue on blue vs Zack Goldsmith. She is Shadow National Security Minister.
“ You were a Minister at the Foreign Office which signed off his getting British citizenship at the very time he was given citizenship.
As for the political elite, you may be, I’m not.
Of course I wasn’t aware of his vile tweets.”
She is utterly useless.
The point more is that it somewhat nullifies the theory he is mi6 and the two arse cheeks have been patriotically protecting an asset.
Looks far more likely to me that a well connected family used every tool at their disposal and got him a passport knowing it would eventually lead to his release. With the organs of the British state so captured by groupthink that they never stopped to consider the wisdom of it all.
This puzzles me too. If he is 'one of ours' then we should have been (well we shouldn't have had agitators in Egypt anyway - spies should gather intelligence, not foment unrest) quietly using back channels to secure his release and not bragging about it when it happened and bringing it up at every turn.
I wondered if he might be an American asset. Then all the public support for him by our politicians is just coded messages sucking up to Uncle Sam hoping for some sweeties. But the theory doesn't quite explain Starmer's drooling welcome Tweet given that we now have Trump and he won't care about this guy. Perhaps the various US agencies still have links into No. 10 and our Government departments unbenownst to Trump and his team.
The Tories to have posted publicly in support of him so far are Cleverly, Sunak, and Kearns. Very centrist wet bunch from the 'grown ups' wing. Looks like they really shot their own foot off. Oh dear how sad never mind.
I don’t buy the intel asset theory for the reason you say. You’d quietly get him out, hope it doesn’t make the press and move on. You wouldn’t get the great offices of state to announce it with a trumpet during the Christmas news vacuum. The simplest explanation is probably right - Whitehall and Westminster simply don’t have a clue what they’re doing.
Realistically the Tories need a leader untainted from their previous time in government. No idea who that might be because they went through so many ministers by the end there can't be many MPs left.
We don't know if Kemi has had any involvement with this. She seems to have been in the right departments to have her hands clean. She is also very Twitter-savvy, so not likely to have done stuff like tag him into Tweets.
I think her best move is an investigation, followed by resignations and a reshuffle. The Tory Party is meant to be under new management. If she does that, she can say that everyone on her side involved has resigned honourably - will Starmer?
Realistically the Tories need a leader untainted from their previous time in government. No idea who that might be because they went through so many ministers by the end there can't be many MPs left.
It's part of the game that Jenrick is playing- hence his resignation from the last government. For some, that has given him sufficient distance.
Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.
Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement. The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.
I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.
It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.
The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.
Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.
A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.
Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.
The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.
So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.
Two that we know about.
It's part of a wider issue, that the rules are set up that the relevant minister will act competently, when the minister isn't up to it, the system kinda falls apart.
The issue is the Chinese and Russians have been targeting our MPs (and other elected officials) on a whole new level in recent years.
It has been reported that, during his time as foreign secretary in 2016-18, Johnson lost the confidence of spy chiefs when he “blurted out” classified information about a hostage in Syria during a cabinet meeting, and inadvertently disclosed details of the investigation into the 2013 murder of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed by Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, east London.
A cabinet meeting? He "blurted out" something to a cabinet meeting? That would be the highest civil authority in the governance of this country? This is just so ridiculous I don't know where to start.
I'm inclined to agree, though the idea that cabinet is an appropriate place to disclose senstive classified information is wrong. I think there are up to 40 people in the room for full cabinet, and I wouldn't be surprised if most of those there do not have the appropriate clearance.
More importantly, if this idea of telling politicians things catches on, they might try and run the country.
Can’t have elected people running the country - that would risk democracy as we know it!
The more important 'how old I am' metric is how long ago was the first GE you could vote in.
20 years for me.
More important than that - metric-wise - is when did your junior colleagues? Who was their 'first prime minister'? (In more innocent terms - 'who was their first Doctor Who?')
I'm getting to the stage where the first PM they truly remember is David Cameron. Things like #indyref and #brexit are vague news items. A bit like I might have thought on the Winter of Discontent, or the first #indyref, or indeed the 1975 EEC #ref (I'm assuming they didn't have a hashtag, because civilisation was still intact).
Have you noticed police looking younger too?
I have a colleague whose dad is over a decade younger than me. That really makes me feel old.
Realistically the Tories need a leader untainted from their previous time in government. No idea who that might be because they went through so many ministers by the end there can't be many MPs left.
Tony Blair, David Cameron and Keir Starmer were not even in Parliament when their party was in government. They were first elected at the election following the initial defeat.
Those who sneer at media studies should remember that English, when first introduced to universities, was seen as the media studies of its day. Novels were read for pleasure, or for women to discuss in their knitting circles, not the stuff of serious academic enquiry.
I find English Literature a more ridiculous subject than media studies. I was lucky enough that my school did not require it at GCSE and I sympathise with my daughters whise schools compel them to take it.
Those who sneer at media studies should remember that English, when first introduced to universities, was seen as the media studies of its day. Novels were read for pleasure, or for women to discuss in their knitting circles, not the stuff of serious academic enquiry.
I find English Literature a more ridiculous subject than media studies. I was lucky enough that my school did not require it at GCSE and I sympathise with my daughters whise schools compel them to take it.
The more important 'how old I am' metric is how long ago was the first GE you could vote in.
20 years for me.
More important than that - metric-wise - is when did your junior colleagues? Who was their 'first prime minister'? (In more innocent terms - 'who was their first Doctor Who?')
I'm getting to the stage where the first PM they truly remember is David Cameron. Things like #indyref and #brexit are vague news items. A bit like I might have thought on the Winter of Discontent, or the first #indyref, or indeed the 1975 EEC #ref (I'm assuming they didn't have a hashtag, because civilisation was still intact).
Have you noticed police looking younger too?
Vaguely indeed - there was no first indyref before 2014. You're thinking of the 1979 one for an Assembly, or the 1997 one for a Scottish Pmt.
I remember the 1975 one ... possibly the first serious political discussion I had (with the master doing the political thought lessons: on the nature of modern democracy).
Comments
E.g. the little green men in Ukraine should have been bombed after MH17 went down, and again after Salisbury. I don't think the 2022 invasion would have happened had we laid that marker down. They certainly haven't messed around with the Turks since 2015.
Say MI6 are spying on some Russian spies who are meeting an MP they remain in charge of the operation.
It's part of a wider issue, that the rules are set up that the relevant minister will act competently, when the minister isn't up to it, the system kinda falls apart.
The issue is the Chinese and Russians have been targeting our MPs (and other elected officials) on a whole new level in recent years.
It has been reported that, during his time as foreign secretary in 2016-18, Johnson lost the confidence of spy chiefs when he “blurted out” classified information about a hostage in Syria during a cabinet meeting, and inadvertently disclosed details of the investigation into the 2013 murder of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed by Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, east London.
"I have certainly met him without officials," he said. "I met him on a very few occasions."
And when asked if he met the Russian billionaire and former Evening Standard owner while foreign secretary in Italy in 2018, he said he had.
Mr Johnson made Mr Lebedev's son Evgeny a member of the House of Lords.
Controversy surrounds that appointment, since it was alleged - first in a Tortoise Media podcast and then in the Sunday Times - that the peerage was granted despite a warning from the security services that it posed a national security risk.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62068421
Villa have Forest (H), Palace (A), Everton (H) Newcastle (A) in January. If they can hold off Arsenal in their last match this year, they're in a fantastic position
I also like the look of Sunderland to finish in top half of the league, they are currently 10/1 to finish top 6 with Ladbrokes
Sir Arnold Robinson.
Is the Alaa Abd El-Fattah story going to be bigger than the Chagos deal or the China spy trial story, I remember some where predicting the end of Starmer then.
Just so I can update my betting portfolio.
Can’t have elected people running the country - that would risk democracy as we know it!
The story that will finish off Starmer will have to be something unique to his government. Most of the stuff coming out now is still just the legacy of the prior government - including the big one, small boats.
You will be amazed to hear that most of the stories about drunkenness - e.g. the booze in the Qumrani reception - were based on incidents involving George Brown.
Edit - Wilson was never trusted, partly for that reason. He was seen as too clever, too sly, too manipulative. It was said he had only two problems - his face.
The same fuckstains who were very animated about people getting locked up for things they wrote on social media seem to be very concerned with this guy's history.
20 years for me.
But working in a German bank, I can tell you that “Ukraine after the war” is seen as a huge opportunity - repeat the rise of Poland, Czech Republic etc. Build factories, employ the cheap local labour, ride the boom. A lot of money was made in Germany by doing that in Eastern Europe. Another opportunity to get in on the ground floor would be prized.
Even if the US doesn’t pony up any dosh I’m sure their corporations will benefit from any EU/UK largesse.
https://x.com/alaa/status/59007002986287104?s=61
"US government takes blame for fatal Washington plane crash
Air traffic controller and army pilot flying helicopter ‘breached’ duty of care owed by country, says legal filing"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/12/18/us-government-takes-blame-dc-plane-crash/?recomm_id=76e5196f-f4de-4534-b5aa-ad2e802888f9
There’s always a screengrab. To be fair to him he’s been active deleting his tweet history. Can’t say I blame him.
I cannot see how past social media posts can be defended and on Twitter he’s been condemned for it across the political spectrum.
Here, he seems to be revered for what he said, Mind you it’s no surprise when here some people claimed the Epping Hotel sex attacker was a victim of racism.
https://x.com/archrose90/status/2004999788748808227?s=61
I'm getting to the stage where the first PM they truly remember is David Cameron. Things like #indyref and #brexit are vague news items. A bit like I might have thought on the Winter of Discontent, or the first #indyref, or indeed the 1975 EEC #ref (I'm assuming they didn't have a hashtag, because civilisation was still intact).
Have you noticed police looking younger too?
By first Dr Who do you mean when born or watched ?
I was born in between two episodes of Galaxy 4, first story I remember is Inferno.
We’re going to see the Neil Diamond one in the new year. Looking forward to it.
She was born five years before Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. I neglected to ask her is she remembered the event. Too late now.
My theory is that Cleverly hasn't got a brain or opinion of his own so is happy to go along with whatever Britain hating nonsense the civil service comes up with without questioning it. He's just a dimwitted passenger unable to or unwilling to realise he's being played by the civil servants who clearly loathe this country and will do whatever they can to hurt its interests.
Although, come to think of it, I have similar complaints about many biopics. Maybe it is my TikTok-addled mind unable to cope with a 2-hour narrative, just as students of English are said to have trouble with full-length novels. Or perhaps the nagging question, why not a documentary intercut with genuine concert footage?
Usually too expensive - documentaries generally hav tiny budgets by movie standards. Or they may not like the angle the documenry is taking.
I think there was a documenatary released about Hendrix that had no authorisation from his estate to use any images of him or any of his music.
Blue on blue vs Zack Goldsmith. She is Shadow National Security Minister.
“ You were a Minister at the Foreign Office which signed off his getting British citizenship at the very time he was given citizenship.
As for the political elite, you may be, I’m not.
Of course I wasn’t aware of his vile tweets.”
Cleverley commenced these negotiations UNDER SUNAK. Truss had already left office - it doesn't matter if she wanted to give the Chagos back with a free offer of the Channel Islands, she had gone.
Looks far more likely to me that a well connected family used every tool at their disposal and got him a passport knowing it would eventually lead to his release. With the organs of the British state so captured by groupthink that they never stopped to consider the wisdom of it all.
Even if Energetic Bob Jenrick's intention was to fling a small explosive device the way of the present government, it's ended up doing plenty of harm to the previous governing party.
Maybe that was the intention as well.
I wondered if he might be an American asset. Then all the public support for him by our politicians is just coded messages sucking up to Uncle Sam hoping for some sweeties. But the theory doesn't quite explain Starmer's drooling welcome Tweet given that we now have Trump and he won't care about this guy. Perhaps the various US agencies still have links into No. 10 and our Government departments unbenownst to Trump and his team.
The Tories to have posted publicly in support of him so far are Cleverly, Sunak, and Kearns. Very centrist wet bunch from the 'grown ups' wing. Looks like they really shot their own foot off. Oh dear how sad never mind.
I think her best move is an investigation, followed by resignations and a reshuffle. The Tory Party is meant to be under new management. If she does that, she can say that everyone on her side involved has resigned honourably - will Starmer?
I remember the 1975 one ... possibly the first serious political discussion I had (with the master doing the political thought lessons: on the nature of modern democracy).
#pedanticpb.com