Labour pays millions to make hospital stats more flattering: ministers accused of massaging NHS figures by paying £3m a month to take off waiting lists patients who no longer need treatment. Interesting story from @oliver_wright
So they’re finding patients who died waiting for treatment, removed them from the lists, and are now boasting about the lists being shorter, alluding to more treatments being carried out.
Now imagine how this works with the elderly and vulnerable if “Assisted Dying” is allowed to happen…
I don't see putting out a more accurate statistic as an especially egregious crime.
It’s that they’re saying “Waiting lists are down, well done us”, while all they’re actually doing is removing those who died waiting for their treatment.
If they had actually increased the number of treatments, then absolutely they can claim the win.
I doubt that is the only reason the lists are down. In any case, it is better to put out accurate statistics now rather than include non-existent people. If the last government was too lazy or incompetent to publish accurate statistics that is hardly the fault of the current lot.
If anyone wants a political news feed that doesn’t mention Mandelson at all today, may I recommend Southam Observer’s BlueSky account
Gosh - Southam Observer! Haven't heard from him for years - what;s his particular angle these days?
His angle is “being completely ignored by everyone, because he’s on Bluesky, which is a desolate bleakscape for a few stupid midwit lefties, who flounced off X and then realised no one was going to follow them, because they are boring wankers. But some of them are too proud to shamefully return, even tho they left behind 20,000 followers on X and now have 48 annoying followers on Bluesky”
X remains a hub for specific niches like sports betting and politics but is slowly dying and is a bit of a cess pit. Bluesky is growing rapidly and is noted for having higher engagement in specialised communities, particularly within scientific research and academia.
X average IQ 80? Bluesky average IQ 125? Chacun à son goût
20 million using twitter? Doesn't pass the smell test, unless it's just clicking on links to it.
Monthly activity is a low bar. And if you ever follow a link you do now need to log in to read the whole thread. Plus, how many bots from UK IP addresses?
A lot of the story is "Labour doomed, Greens rampant, Kemi beginning to surprise on the upside."
Whereas the polling average has Labour just about convincingly in second place and Reform ahead, but probably not yet by enough to win next time. It's bad for Starmer's government, but (so far) it's not that bad.
Labour pays millions to make hospital stats more flattering: ministers accused of massaging NHS figures by paying £3m a month to take off waiting lists patients who no longer need treatment. Interesting story from @oliver_wright
So they’re finding patients who died waiting for treatment, removed them from the lists, and are now boasting about the lists being shorter, alluding to more treatments being carried out.
Now imagine how this works with the elderly and vulnerable if “Assisted Dying” is allowed to happen…
I don't see putting out a more accurate statistic as an especially egregious crime.
It’s that they’re saying “Waiting lists are down, well done us”, while all they’re actually doing is removing those who died waiting for their treatment.
If they had actually increased the number of treatments, then absolutely they can claim the win.
I doubt that is the only reason the lists are down. In any case, it is better to put out accurate statistics now rather than include non-existent people. If the last government was too lazy or incompetent to publish accurate statistics that is hardly the fault of the current lot.
Yes but they need to be honest.
It’s easy to say “waiting lists down 100k people this month, 30k better than last month, aren’t we awesome?”
It’s way more difficult to say “50k people died waiting for an operation this month”.
Every financial institution in the UK has been spending the last few days checking to see if they’ve had any emails to/from Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein.
Any past association with him is now toxic, it seems. But only for Europeans….
Yes, few Americans would even know who Peter Mandelson is. They are probably not much interested in the revelations anyway as so few Americans politicians and public figures are involved in the scandal.
Starmer falls before the May elections. He might fall this week.
Shelagh Fogerty on LBC wants him gone.
How does he fall? Who will challenge? He won't just resign.
Internal Party pressure. If MacSweeney hasn't gone by close of business today surely people will move on him.
He was nothing to do with Mandelson’s appointment.
MacSweeney was the conduit between Mandelson and Starmer since before the election.
Apparently Mandelson and MacSweeney are politically very close.
The New Labour project has been irredeemably soiled by the emails. Starmer is now tainted by Epstein. There is no way back. It is Boris and Pincher time.
Starmer falls before the May elections. He might fall this week.
Shelagh Fogerty on LBC wants him gone.
How does he fall? Who will challenge? He won't just resign.
Internal Party pressure. If MacSweeney hasn't gone by close of business today surely people will move on him.
He was nothing to do with Mandelson’s appointment.
MacSweeney was the conduit between Mandelson and Starmer since before the election.
Apparently Mandelson and MacSweeney are politically very close.
The New Labour project has been irredeemably soiled by the emails. Starmer is now tainted by Epstein. There is no way back. It is Boris and Pincher time.
Labour pays millions to make hospital stats more flattering: ministers accused of massaging NHS figures by paying £3m a month to take off waiting lists patients who no longer need treatment. Interesting story from @oliver_wright
So they’re finding patients who died waiting for treatment, removed them from the lists, and are now boasting about the lists being shorter, alluding to more treatments being carried out.
Now imagine how this works with the elderly and vulnerable if “Assisted Dying” is allowed to happen…
I don't see putting out a more accurate statistic as an especially egregious crime.
It’s that they’re saying “Waiting lists are down, well done us”, while all they’re actually doing is removing those who died waiting for their treatment.
If they had actually increased the number of treatments, then absolutely they can claim the win.
Its not just dead patients being removed from waiting lists (indeed these are automatic so as to prevent waiting list co-ordinators contacting bereaved relatives innappropriately), but duplicates, ones superseded by a change in plan, those who are not able to attend (for example having moved abroad) those that have got better on their own, those that have gone private, and those that have changed their mind, perhaps due to other illness.
Tidying up waiting lists like this has been routine throughout my professional life under governments of all stripes. It is key to having accurate statistics and also making maximum use of facilities by not sending for people innappropriately. Current management are going through anyone on RTT (Referal to Treatment) where there's a risk that they will be over 52 weeks at the end of March. This is done on an individual patient level with a plan for each.
Eulogising that Mandelson was most impressive person he ever met in EU Parliament, always on his brief.
Chastising the questioner that his peerage was not the key issue.
Getting very tetchy when questioned about Bannon and Bannon links to Epstein and Mandelson
Lukewarm support for Badenoch if motion is limited to Ambassador appointment.
No wonder on that it would be blinkered and nieve to ask about Ambassador appointment now when millions of post appointment Epstein mail dumps have clearly shown wholly new evidence from mail channels that no government department could have known about.
If Badenoch tries to pin Starmer on Ambassador appointment he'll tie her in procedural knots and show her as just being shouty and wholly missing far bigger points.
Peter Mandelson is utterly disgraced, could end up in prison and breathtaking revelations are damaging Labour and a PM who made him our man in Washington. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and ex-wife Sarah Ferguson could bring down the monarchy.
Now remind me again Kev about McBride and attending those meetings planning to set up a fake news website to smear Osborne and alike. The brass neck of these people.
I don’t think it will bring down the monarchy but I do think the monarchy more now than at any time relies very heavily on the next generation of William, Kate and their family and for their accession to be seen as a significant renewal and page turn.
If they’re not already thinking about Crown revenues, how the Duchies operate, who is/isn’t a working royal, how the titles get dished out and who is on the payroll, they need to be.
Charles has been doing that for over three years.
The Queen's idea was you had lots of royals, most of them fairly part-time, making them highly visible and in all parts of national life, and spread the money thinly to make it work.
Charles' idea is to have just a few senior working royals, and use the money to raise their profile and really show an impact. That's one reason he had a big falling out with Harry (and quite possibly another reason why he fell out with Andy, although it doesn't seem they ever got on well). He's pruned the family to essentially himself, Camilla, William and Katherine, Anne and Edward (who seems to have a special role with the DofE award).
His approach is logical and has given a convenient pretext to chop out some very dead wood, but comes with drawbacks. When he and Catherine both had cancer an awful lot of the burden of keeping things going fell on Camilla and Anne, neither of whom are spring chickens. And when in the next few years they either snuff it or retire a huge amount will fall on William and his family.
The Royal Family would benefit from a return of Harry from the States.
I think that's probably more important than any of the reforms around crown revenues, duchies of here, there or wherever, that most people know nothing about. Harry is a personality. He seems genuinely interested in using his accident of birth for good. Whatever else William might be thinking of in terms of reform he needs to be working on a reconciliation with his brother.
Nope!
If he comes back, it will be on his own and he’ll be sharing an apartment with Andrew.
You can’t walk back from writing books and making documentaries sh!tting on your own family, and ever expect a reconciliation.
Forgiveness is a Christian virtue, and for all that Harry has done that has been damaging, having him back and being a positive face for the royalty with his charitable work would be a benefit.
And who else is there? Edward is 61. He's the youngest in that generation and age will catch up with him before too long. William and Kate won't be able to do it all by themselves.
Labour pays millions to make hospital stats more flattering: ministers accused of massaging NHS figures by paying £3m a month to take off waiting lists patients who no longer need treatment. Interesting story from @oliver_wright
So they’re finding patients who died waiting for treatment, removed them from the lists, and are now boasting about the lists being shorter, alluding to more treatments being carried out.
Now imagine how this works with the elderly and vulnerable if “Assisted Dying” is allowed to happen…
I don't see putting out a more accurate statistic as an especially egregious crime.
It’s that they’re saying “Waiting lists are down, well done us”, while all they’re actually doing is removing those who died waiting for their treatment.
If they had actually increased the number of treatments, then absolutely they can claim the win.
Its not just dead patients being removed from waiting lists (indeed these are automatic so as to prevent waiting list co-ordinators contacting bereaved relatives innappropriately), but duplicates, ones superseded by a change in plan, those who are not able to attend (for example having moved abroad) those that have got better on their own, those that have gone private, and those that have changed their mind, perhaps due to other illness.
Tidying up waiting lists like this has been routine throughout my professional life under governments of all stripes. It is key to having accurate statistics and also making maximum use of facilities by not sending for people innappropriately. Current management are going through anyone on RTT (Referal to Treatment) where there's a risk that they will be over 52 weeks at the end of March. This is done on an individual patient level with a plan for each.
Does it really cost 3,000,000 a month? Or is that the staff costs of people already doing this?
In at least one email forwarded to Epstein, an email address for “John Pond” was in copy. The Guardian – its own extensive support for Mandelson over the years is notable – reports it “understands was the code name used by advisers when forwarding to Brown’s secure email account.” Code name, what?
This doesn’t make sense. Brown was the first PM who used email extensively for his ‘email red box’ – and he was directly emailed notes from his team all the time. His senior officials and advisers all had his official email address…
Multiple former officials have confirmed to Guido that the use of code words under the Brown government like “John Pond” was a tactic to avoid freedom of information laws. Substituting real names like “Gordon Brown” with code names put any document out of the scope of freedom of information requests. One official recalls it was “common practice in the Cabinet”. Blair had introduced FOI.
The same did occur to me, why did the PM have a separate secret email account under a nom de guerre.
I seemed to remember during cash for honours scandal there was all the talk of a private email server etc to keep stuff off the record.
These are the same people who will tell the public, in relation to an ID cards database, that if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. So why were they so anxious to hide things from us, the public? What do they have to fear?
The stink that is emanating from the elite resembles that from the most crowded pig shed.
And there Farage is, poised to give the British public the chance to jump from the frying pan down to the inferno in the pits of hell.
What a fecking mess.
That is a disgusting remark.
Pigs are very clean animals, actually.
Pigs might be clean, but pig shit stinks, particularly pig shit from pigs kept in cramped stressful conditions. It was our number one criterion for choosing the location of our house - not near a pig farm.
These days two blokes smoking skunk in a van parked outside your house will provide the same experience.
Is that what has put Mr Thomas off London?
IIRC correctly Mr Thomas also writes stuff saying that the only place in the world worth living in is London. Journalists, like lawyers, have to survive in a tough environment, and building stuff up and knocking is down a again is a central aspect of that planet wide job creation scheeme.
A good lesson is to ignore anything written purely to get clicks-through from the internet, rather than for actual physical publication.
lol!
No journalist writes for “physical publication” any more. They ALL write for eyes and clicks, because that’s what generates engagement and therefore advertising and subscriptions
How to please an editor? Get to the top of the “most read” list. They barely give a fuck about anything else
You can have the best idea in the world, and you might be able to phrase it like Milton, but if “that subject just bombs online” then they’re not gonna run it
Following today's Russian strike, I held a coordination call to discuss the situation in the regions, particularly the energy sector.
It was a deliberate attack against energy infrastructure, involving a record number of ballistic missiles. In fact, the Russian army exploited the U.S. proposal to briefly halt strikes not to support diplomacy, but to stockpile missiles and wait until the coldest days of the year, when temperatures across large parts of Ukraine drop below -20°C (-4°F).
In this single strike alone, there were 32 ballistic missiles, 11 missiles of other types that approached their targets along a ballistic trajectory, 28 cruise missiles, and 450 attack drones—most of them “Shaheds.” A significant number were intercepted, but not all.
Energy infrastructure facilities in several regions were hit, with the greatest damage in the Kharkiv and Dnipro regions, Kyiv and the region, the Vinnytsia and Odesa regions, as well as in Zaporizhzhia. All necessary forces are being engaged, and I have directed the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Government as a whole to provide equipment from reserve stocks and to urgently contact partners regarding additional support packages. I am having a substantive discussion on this with Mark Rutte right now.
Repair and emergency crews are working in all cities and communities as needed, and all energy companies’ resources are being deployed.
The heating situation is particularly difficult in Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Dnipro, as well as Lozova in the Kharkiv region.
Specific tasks have been assigned to the Defense Ministry and the Air Force Commander. I expect the Foreign Ministry and our entire diplomatic corps to work at maximum intensity to inform partners about what is happening and to secure sufficient support for our people and for our country.
Each such Russian strike confirms that attitudes in Moscow have not changed: they continue to bet on war and the destruction of Ukraine, and they do not take diplomacy seriously. The work of our negotiating team will be adjusted accordingly. Glory to Ukraine! https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/2018649188905505017
Ukraine's friend have to help them destroy Russia's hydrocarbons industry. Break Putin's economy. Fast.
We might also consider not supplying the components in Russia's missiles.
Starmer falls before the May elections. He might fall this week.
Shelagh Fogerty on LBC wants him gone.
How does he fall? Who will challenge? He won't just resign.
Internal Party pressure. If MacSweeney hasn't gone by close of business today surely people will move on him.
He was nothing to do with Mandelson’s appointment.
MacSweeney was the conduit between Mandelson and Starmer since before the election.
Apparently Mandelson and MacSweeney are politically very close.
The New Labour project has been irredeemably soiled by the emails. Starmer is now tainted by Epstein. There is no way back. It is Boris and Pincher time.
Ooh interesting, I did not know that…
In theory appointing Mandelson to handle Trump was genius. In practice it has been anything but.
Interesting that Starmer is in serious peril whilst Trump claims the latest drop exonerates him fully and he has never been stronger. According to Trump, Clinton and Gates have had their game tumbled and are looking at Epstein jail time.
Peter Mandelson is utterly disgraced, could end up in prison and breathtaking revelations are damaging Labour and a PM who made him our man in Washington. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and ex-wife Sarah Ferguson could bring down the monarchy.
Now remind me again Kev about McBride and attending those meetings planning to set up a fake news website to smear Osborne and alike. The brass neck of these people.
I don’t think it will bring down the monarchy but I do think the monarchy more now than at any time relies very heavily on the next generation of William, Kate and their family and for their accession to be seen as a significant renewal and page turn.
If they’re not already thinking about Crown revenues, how the Duchies operate, who is/isn’t a working royal, how the titles get dished out and who is on the payroll, they need to be.
Charles has been doing that for over three years.
The Queen's idea was you had lots of royals, most of them fairly part-time, making them highly visible and in all parts of national life, and spread the money thinly to make it work.
Charles' idea is to have just a few senior working royals, and use the money to raise their profile and really show an impact. That's one reason he had a big falling out with Harry (and quite possibly another reason why he fell out with Andy, although it doesn't seem they ever got on well). He's pruned the family to essentially himself, Camilla, William and Katherine, Anne and Edward (who seems to have a special role with the DofE award).
His approach is logical and has given a convenient pretext to chop out some very dead wood, but comes with drawbacks. When he and Catherine both had cancer an awful lot of the burden of keeping things going fell on Camilla and Anne, neither of whom are spring chickens. And when in the next few years they either snuff it or retire a huge amount will fall on William and his family.
The Royal Family would benefit from a return of Harry from the States.
I think that's probably more important than any of the reforms around crown revenues, duchies of here, there or wherever, that most people know nothing about. Harry is a personality. He seems genuinely interested in using his accident of birth for good. Whatever else William might be thinking of in terms of reform he needs to be working on a reconciliation with his brother.
Nope!
If he comes back, it will be on his own and he’ll be sharing an apartment with Andrew.
You can’t walk back from writing books and making documentaries sh!tting on your own family, and ever expect a reconciliation.
Forgiveness is a Christian virtue, and for all that Harry has done that has been damaging, having him back and being a positive face for the royalty with his charitable work would be a benefit.
And who else is there? Edward is 61. He's the youngest in that generation and age will catch up with him before too long. William and Kate won't be able to do it all by themselves.
Harry’s done nothing charitable, it’s all been lining his own pockets via US foundation companies. Even the Invictus games, which could have been his legacy in a similar way to the Duke of Edinburgh Award, have been monetised by Harry personally.
Edward’s kids are coming of age, they can be the future working royals of the next generation.
Starmer falls before the May elections. He might fall this week.
Shelagh Fogerty on LBC wants him gone.
How does he fall? Who will challenge? He won't just resign.
Internal Party pressure. If MacSweeney hasn't gone by close of business today surely people will move on him.
Sky saying labour benches are in utter despair and lot of anger against McSweeney
BJO said he was utter s***e years ago.
This is no longer savable for Starmer. This is Pincher level peril verging on Profumo.
Starmer is in Johnson-Pincher danger and Mandelson's behaviour whilst Business Secretary is Profumo level bad. I was thinking Stonehouse, but this is far, far worse.
Eulogising that Mandelson was most impressive person he ever met in EU Parliament, always on his brief.
Chastising the questioner that his peerage was not the key issue.
Getting very tetchy when questioned about Bannon and Bannon links to Epstein and Mandelson
Lukewarm support for Badenoch if motion is limited to Ambassador appointment.
No wonder on that it would be blinkered and nieve to ask about Ambassador appointment now when millions of post appointment Epstein mail dumps have clearly shown wholly new evidence from mail channels that no government department could have known about.
If Badenoch tries to pin Starmer on Ambassador appointment he'll tie her in procedural knots and show her as just being shouty and wholly missing far bigger points.
You do know that virtually the whole of Parliament across the political divide are after Starmer's appointment of Mandelson not least Emily Thornberry
As Sam Coates of Sky says McSweeney going would focus then on Starmer and his position
There is no doubt of the fury of labour backbenchers on this
What are the odds on Starmer going this year? Anything kinder than evens is a BUY
The only was this is remotely savable for Starmer is if he eats humble pie covered in excrement, and he takes the kicking.
What Mandelson did in Cabinet was unforgivable. Now Starmer couldn't have known that level of deception, but he knew enough about Mandelson to give Washington to someone else. It was a gamble. Starmer won, then he lost, big time.
Peter Mandelson is utterly disgraced, could end up in prison and breathtaking revelations are damaging Labour and a PM who made him our man in Washington. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and ex-wife Sarah Ferguson could bring down the monarchy.
Now remind me again Kev about McBride and attending those meetings planning to set up a fake news website to smear Osborne and alike. The brass neck of these people.
I don’t think it will bring down the monarchy but I do think the monarchy more now than at any time relies very heavily on the next generation of William, Kate and their family and for their accession to be seen as a significant renewal and page turn.
If they’re not already thinking about Crown revenues, how the Duchies operate, who is/isn’t a working royal, how the titles get dished out and who is on the payroll, they need to be.
Charles has been doing that for over three years.
The Queen's idea was you had lots of royals, most of them fairly part-time, making them highly visible and in all parts of national life, and spread the money thinly to make it work.
Charles' idea is to have just a few senior working royals, and use the money to raise their profile and really show an impact. That's one reason he had a big falling out with Harry (and quite possibly another reason why he fell out with Andy, although it doesn't seem they ever got on well). He's pruned the family to essentially himself, Camilla, William and Katherine, Anne and Edward (who seems to have a special role with the DofE award).
His approach is logical and has given a convenient pretext to chop out some very dead wood, but comes with drawbacks. When he and Catherine both had cancer an awful lot of the burden of keeping things going fell on Camilla and Anne, neither of whom are spring chickens. And when in the next few years they either snuff it or retire a huge amount will fall on William and his family.
They are extremely lucky to have Catherine
William chose well. Catherine is like the late Queen. Impeccably polite and well behaved, with some instinctive sense of decorum while managing to be personable
If William had married a Sarah Ferguson type, or a Meghan, then the monarchy would have been in very serious trouble
My niece was at St Andrews at the same time. Her view was that it was Catherine who chose William.
In which case the Royal Family are even more lucky to have her. She clearly knows what the job is, and does it well.
If the less savoury rumours about William are right then he hasn't exactly been suitably grateful for what she has done for him.
Oh FFS not this again. The rumour about William and Rose Hanbury was started by Giles Coren (as he has admitted and apologised for) as a joke at the opening of Soho House Amsterdam whilst partying with Meghan Markle and others.
And definitely no need to get Harry back, he, like Andrew, is a brainless entitled prick who slagged of his family and the country for his own benefit because he was too stupid to realise that the only reason anyone gave the tiniest shit about what he says or does is by virtue of him being born to the King and not because he has anything useful, inciteful or original to say.
We are aware of media reports that the husband of Peter Mandelson, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, was in receipt of funds from Jeffrey Epstein to fund an osteopathy course in the UK in 2009.
Reinaldo Avila da Silva did not graduate from an osteopathy course and has never been registered with the General Osteopathic Council (GOsC). Therefore, he is not able to practise osteopathy in accordance with the law within the UK.
All osteopaths are highly trained in standards of competence and ethics to keep patients safe, and are required to maintain their knowledge, skills and behaviours in accordance with our standards. We have powers to restrict or remove the registration of osteopaths who do not meet our standards for the purposes of public protection.
Section 32(1) of the Osteopaths Act 1993 (the 1993 Act) makes it a criminal offence for a person who is not registered with the GOsC to describe themselves, either expressly or by implication, as any kind of osteopath. S32(1) applies to the United Kingdom.
Labour pays millions to make hospital stats more flattering: ministers accused of massaging NHS figures by paying £3m a month to take off waiting lists patients who no longer need treatment. Interesting story from @oliver_wright
So they’re finding patients who died waiting for treatment, removed them from the lists, and are now boasting about the lists being shorter, alluding to more treatments being carried out.
Now imagine how this works with the elderly and vulnerable if “Assisted Dying” is allowed to happen…
I don't see putting out a more accurate statistic as an especially egregious crime.
It’s that they’re saying “Waiting lists are down, well done us”, while all they’re actually doing is removing those who died waiting for their treatment.
If they had actually increased the number of treatments, then absolutely they can claim the win.
Its not just dead patients being removed from waiting lists (indeed these are automatic so as to prevent waiting list co-ordinators contacting bereaved relatives innappropriately), but duplicates, ones superseded by a change in plan, those who are not able to attend (for example having moved abroad) those that have got better on their own, those that have gone private, and those that have changed their mind, perhaps due to other illness.
Tidying up waiting lists like this has been routine throughout my professional life under governments of all stripes. It is key to having accurate statistics and also making maximum use of facilities by not sending for people innappropriately. Current management are going through anyone on RTT (Referal to Treatment) where there's a risk that they will be over 52 weeks at the end of March. This is done on an individual patient level with a plan for each.
Does it really cost 3,000,000 a month? Or is that the staff costs of people already doing this?
No idea what the cost is, but we do have Band 7 and higher managers working on this every week. There are about 7 million on English RTT pathways, but also a very high degree of churn as the Median RTT time ia a lot lower than 52 weeks, cancer pathways being 2 weeks for example.
Farage is very skilful at putting the boot in without laying himself open to the charge of hypocrisy. I noticed the same thing in his response to Angela Rayner’s mortgage problems.
Eulogising that Mandelson was most impressive person he ever met in EU Parliament, always on his brief.
Chastising the questioner that his peerage was not the key issue.
Getting very tetchy when questioned about Bannon and Bannon links to Epstein and Mandelson
Lukewarm support for Badenoch if motion is limited to Ambassador appointment.
No wonder on that it would be blinkered and nieve to ask about Ambassador appointment now when millions of post appointment Epstein mail dumps have clearly shown wholly new evidence from mail channels that no government department could have known about.
If Badenoch tries to pin Starmer on Ambassador appointment he'll tie her in procedural knots and show her as just being shouty and wholly missing far bigger points.
You do know that virtually the whole of Parliament across the political divide are after Starmer's appointment of Mandelson not least Emily Thornberry
As Sam Coates of Sky says McSweeney going would focus then on Starmer and his position
There is no doubt of the fury of labour backbenchers on this
I do know that yes.
It would also appear that the request will be for all documentation regarding the appointment to be made public.
That is a very blinkered and limiting question.
I'd bet Starmer and the Labour front bench would be mighty relieved.
Answer from Starmer.
We wholeheartedly support the request. We will vote for the motion. We will cooperate fully. We support a full independent enquiry.
Safe in the knowledge NONE of the incendiary evidence released in the Epstein files was valid.
Safe in the knowledge that past concerns were considered but nothing new comes out that wasn't known at the time.
The judgement then would be based on known risk but not hindsight of the subsequent Epstein dumps.
Starmer remains PM McSweeney is sacrificed, Labour close ranks. Local Election results then far less concerning for Starmer as the boil lanced is McSweeney.
Labour pays millions to make hospital stats more flattering: ministers accused of massaging NHS figures by paying £3m a month to take off waiting lists patients who no longer need treatment. Interesting story from @oliver_wright
So they’re finding patients who died waiting for treatment, removed them from the lists, and are now boasting about the lists being shorter, alluding to more treatments being carried out.
Now imagine how this works with the elderly and vulnerable if “Assisted Dying” is allowed to happen…
I don't see putting out a more accurate statistic as an especially egregious crime.
It’s that they’re saying “Waiting lists are down, well done us”, while all they’re actually doing is removing those who died waiting for their treatment.
If they had actually increased the number of treatments, then absolutely they can claim the win.
Its not just dead patients being removed from waiting lists (indeed these are automatic so as to prevent waiting list co-ordinators contacting bereaved relatives innappropriately), but duplicates, ones superseded by a change in plan, those who are not able to attend (for example having moved abroad) those that have got better on their own, those that have gone private, and those that have changed their mind, perhaps due to other illness.
Tidying up waiting lists like this has been routine throughout my professional life under governments of all stripes. It is key to having accurate statistics and also making maximum use of facilities by not sending for people innappropriately. Current management are going through anyone on RTT (Referal to Treatment) where there's a risk that they will be over 52 weeks at the end of March. This is done on an individual patient level with a plan for each.
Does it really cost 3,000,000 a month? Or is that the staff costs of people already doing this?
No idea what the cost is, but we do have Band 7 and higher managers working on this every week. There are about 7 million on English RTT pathways, but also a very high degree of churn as the Median RTT time ia a lot lower than 52 weeks, cancer pathways being 2 weeks for example.
In my head it ought to be simpler (one set of electronic, unified notes) but the NHS is never simple. I guess the question I have is where does the 3 million come in (is it extra?)
Peter Mandelson is utterly disgraced, could end up in prison and breathtaking revelations are damaging Labour and a PM who made him our man in Washington. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and ex-wife Sarah Ferguson could bring down the monarchy.
Now remind me again Kev about McBride and attending those meetings planning to set up a fake news website to smear Osborne and alike. The brass neck of these people.
I don’t think it will bring down the monarchy but I do think the monarchy more now than at any time relies very heavily on the next generation of William, Kate and their family and for their accession to be seen as a significant renewal and page turn.
If they’re not already thinking about Crown revenues, how the Duchies operate, who is/isn’t a working royal, how the titles get dished out and who is on the payroll, they need to be.
Charles has been doing that for over three years.
The Queen's idea was you had lots of royals, most of them fairly part-time, making them highly visible and in all parts of national life, and spread the money thinly to make it work.
Charles' idea is to have just a few senior working royals, and use the money to raise their profile and really show an impact. That's one reason he had a big falling out with Harry (and quite possibly another reason why he fell out with Andy, although it doesn't seem they ever got on well). He's pruned the family to essentially himself, Camilla, William and Katherine, Anne and Edward (who seems to have a special role with the DofE award).
His approach is logical and has given a convenient pretext to chop out some very dead wood, but comes with drawbacks. When he and Catherine both had cancer an awful lot of the burden of keeping things going fell on Camilla and Anne, neither of whom are spring chickens. And when in the next few years they either snuff it or retire a huge amount will fall on William and his family.
They are extremely lucky to have Catherine
William chose well. Catherine is like the late Queen. Impeccably polite and well behaved, with some instinctive sense of decorum while managing to be personable
If William had married a Sarah Ferguson type, or a Meghan, then the monarchy would have been in very serious trouble
My niece was at St Andrews at the same time. Her view was that it was Catherine who chose William.
In which case the Royal Family are even more lucky to have her. She clearly knows what the job is, and does it well.
If the less savoury rumours about William are right then he hasn't exactly been suitably grateful for what she has done for him.
Oh FFS not this again. The rumour about William and Rose Hanbury was started by Giles Coren (as he has admitted and apologised for) as a joke at the opening of Soho House Amsterdam whilst partying with Meghan Markle and others.
And definitely no need to get Harry back, he, like Andrew, is a brainless entitled prick who slagged of his family and the country for his own benefit because he was too stupid to realise that the only reason anyone gave the tiniest shit about what he says or does is by virtue of him being born to the King and not because he has anything useful, inciteful or original to say.
‘ the only reason anyone gave the tiniest shit about what he says or does is by virtue of him being born to the King and not because he has anything useful, inciteful or original to say.’
Doesn’t that principle apply generally to the Windsor-Mountbatten-Saxburg-Epsteins?
Peter Mandelson is utterly disgraced, could end up in prison and breathtaking revelations are damaging Labour and a PM who made him our man in Washington. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and ex-wife Sarah Ferguson could bring down the monarchy.
Now remind me again Kev about McBride and attending those meetings planning to set up a fake news website to smear Osborne and alike. The brass neck of these people.
I don’t think it will bring down the monarchy but I do think the monarchy more now than at any time relies very heavily on the next generation of William, Kate and their family and for their accession to be seen as a significant renewal and page turn.
If they’re not already thinking about Crown revenues, how the Duchies operate, who is/isn’t a working royal, how the titles get dished out and who is on the payroll, they need to be.
Charles has been doing that for over three years.
The Queen's idea was you had lots of royals, most of them fairly part-time, making them highly visible and in all parts of national life, and spread the money thinly to make it work.
Charles' idea is to have just a few senior working royals, and use the money to raise their profile and really show an impact. That's one reason he had a big falling out with Harry (and quite possibly another reason why he fell out with Andy, although it doesn't seem they ever got on well). He's pruned the family to essentially himself, Camilla, William and Katherine, Anne and Edward (who seems to have a special role with the DofE award).
His approach is logical and has given a convenient pretext to chop out some very dead wood, but comes with drawbacks. When he and Catherine both had cancer an awful lot of the burden of keeping things going fell on Camilla and Anne, neither of whom are spring chickens. And when in the next few years they either snuff it or retire a huge amount will fall on William and his family.
They are extremely lucky to have Catherine
William chose well. Catherine is like the late Queen. Impeccably polite and well behaved, with some instinctive sense of decorum while managing to be personable
If William had married a Sarah Ferguson type, or a Meghan, then the monarchy would have been in very serious trouble
My niece was at St Andrews at the same time. Her view was that it was Catherine who chose William.
In which case the Royal Family are even more lucky to have her. She clearly knows what the job is, and does it well.
If the less savoury rumours about William are right then he hasn't exactly been suitably grateful for what she has done for him.
Oh FFS not this again. The rumour about William and Rose Hanbury was started by Giles Coren (as he has admitted and apologised for) as a joke at the opening of Soho House Amsterdam whilst partying with Meghan Markle and others.
And definitely no need to get Harry back, he, like Andrew, is a brainless entitled prick who slagged of his family and the country for his own benefit because he was too stupid to realise that the only reason anyone gave the tiniest shit about what he says or does is by virtue of him being born to the King and not because he has anything useful, inciteful or original to say.
How old are William & Kate's children? Surely won't be too long before they're getting into the public gaze, and the youngest looks to have the makings of being a 'bit of a scamp'!
What are the odds on Starmer going this year? Anything kinder than evens is a BUY
The only was this is remotely savable for Starmer is if he eats humble pie covered in excrement, and he takes the kicking.
What Mandelson did in Cabinet was unforgivable. Now Starmer couldn't have known that level of deception, but he knew enough about Mandelson to give Washington to someone else. It was a gamble. Starmer won, then he lost, big time.
Which he will do by supporting any motion to release all documents pertaining to the appointment and a fully independent enquiry and as he has already done by reporting to the Police
Master stroke by My learned friend.
Comply Comply Comply
Cannot answer any questions due to an ongoing police investigation
Eulogising that Mandelson was most impressive person he ever met in EU Parliament, always on his brief.
Chastising the questioner that his peerage was not the key issue.
Getting very tetchy when questioned about Bannon and Bannon links to Epstein and Mandelson
Lukewarm support for Badenoch if motion is limited to Ambassador appointment.
No wonder on that it would be blinkered and nieve to ask about Ambassador appointment now when millions of post appointment Epstein mail dumps have clearly shown wholly new evidence from mail channels that no government department could have known about.
If Badenoch tries to pin Starmer on Ambassador appointment he'll tie her in procedural knots and show her as just being shouty and wholly missing far bigger points.
You do know that virtually the whole of Parliament across the political divide are after Starmer's appointment of Mandelson not least Emily Thornberry
As Sam Coates of Sky says McSweeney going would focus then on Starmer and his position
There is no doubt of the fury of labour backbenchers on this
I do know that yes.
It would also appear that the request will be for all documentation regarding the appointment to be made public.
That is a very blinkered and limiting question.
I'd bet Starmer and the Labour front bench would be mighty relieved.
Answer from Starmer.
We wholeheartedly support the request. We will vote for the motion. We will cooperate fully. We support a full independent enquiry.
Safe in the knowledge NONE of the incendiary evidence released in the Epstein files was valid.
Safe in the knowledge that past concerns were considered but nothing new comes out that wasn't known at the time.
The judgement then would be based on known risk but not hindsight of the subsequent Epstein dumps.
Starmer remains PM McSweeney is sacrificed, Labour close ranks. Local Election results then far less concerning for Starmer as the boil lanced is McSweeney.
"Safe in the knowledge NONE of the incendiary evidence released in the Epstein files was valid."
None valid? Bold...
The person who could throw a big brick in a small pond on this is Gordon Brown.
What are the odds on Starmer going this year? Anything kinder than evens is a BUY
It's odds on. 1.85. In from 1.95 due to this. Not much of a change really.
1.85 looks decent enough odds to me. It depends a bit on what Starmer's defence is. If he can say his vetting agencies didn't bring the risk to his attention, he may hang on for a bit, but even them he's in deep doo doo because he really ought to have known what a risk he was taking even without being told explicitly. It's not as if Mandy didn't have form.
If Starmer was properly informed and cautioned he will be out in no time at all. I doubt he can lie about it. His top security advisers will not allow themselves to be thrown under a bus to save his career.
Eulogising that Mandelson was most impressive person he ever met in EU Parliament, always on his brief.
Chastising the questioner that his peerage was not the key issue.
Getting very tetchy when questioned about Bannon and Bannon links to Epstein and Mandelson
Lukewarm support for Badenoch if motion is limited to Ambassador appointment.
No wonder on that it would be blinkered and nieve to ask about Ambassador appointment now when millions of post appointment Epstein mail dumps have clearly shown wholly new evidence from mail channels that no government department could have known about.
If Badenoch tries to pin Starmer on Ambassador appointment he'll tie her in procedural knots and show her as just being shouty and wholly missing far bigger points.
You do know that virtually the whole of Parliament across the political divide are after Starmer's appointment of Mandelson not least Emily Thornberry
As Sam Coates of Sky says McSweeney going would focus then on Starmer and his position
There is no doubt of the fury of labour backbenchers on this
I do know that yes.
It would also appear that the request will be for all documentation regarding the appointment to be made public.
That is a very blinkered and limiting question.
I'd bet Starmer and the Labour front bench would be mighty relieved.
Answer from Starmer.
We wholeheartedly support the request. We will vote for the motion. We will cooperate fully. We support a full independent enquiry.
Safe in the knowledge NONE of the incendiary evidence released in the Epstein files was valid.
Safe in the knowledge that past concerns were considered but nothing new comes out that wasn't known at the time.
The judgement then would be based on known risk but not hindsight of the subsequent Epstein dumps.
Starmer remains PM McSweeney is sacrificed, Labour close ranks. Local Election results then far less concerning for Starmer as the boil lanced is McSweeney.
The paradox being that Starmer clearly doesn't want to bin McSweeney, but the Good Ship Labour would probably sail better and more contentedly if he were chucked overboard.
Eulogising that Mandelson was most impressive person he ever met in EU Parliament, always on his brief.
Chastising the questioner that his peerage was not the key issue.
Getting very tetchy when questioned about Bannon and Bannon links to Epstein and Mandelson
Lukewarm support for Badenoch if motion is limited to Ambassador appointment.
No wonder on that it would be blinkered and nieve to ask about Ambassador appointment now when millions of post appointment Epstein mail dumps have clearly shown wholly new evidence from mail channels that no government department could have known about.
If Badenoch tries to pin Starmer on Ambassador appointment he'll tie her in procedural knots and show her as just being shouty and wholly missing far bigger points.
You do know that virtually the whole of Parliament across the political divide are after Starmer's appointment of Mandelson not least Emily Thornberry
As Sam Coates of Sky says McSweeney going would focus then on Starmer and his position
There is no doubt of the fury of labour backbenchers on this
I do know that yes.
It would also appear that the request will be for all documentation regarding the appointment to be made public.
That is a very blinkered and limiting question.
I'd bet Starmer and the Labour front bench would be mighty relieved.
Answer from Starmer.
We wholeheartedly support the request. We will vote for the motion. We will cooperate fully. We support a full independent enquiry.
Safe in the knowledge NONE of the incendiary evidence released in the Epstein files was valid.
Safe in the knowledge that past concerns were considered but nothing new comes out that wasn't known at the time.
The judgement then would be based on known risk but not hindsight of the subsequent Epstein dumps.
Starmer remains PM McSweeney is sacrificed, Labour close ranks. Local Election results then far less concerning for Starmer as the boil lanced is McSweeney.
I think you underestimate the press pack who smell the ultimate 'gotcha' of taking down a PM
And do not forget even before this labour mps were plotting against him
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
Peter Mandelson is utterly disgraced, could end up in prison and breathtaking revelations are damaging Labour and a PM who made him our man in Washington. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and ex-wife Sarah Ferguson could bring down the monarchy.
Now remind me again Kev about McBride and attending those meetings planning to set up a fake news website to smear Osborne and alike. The brass neck of these people.
I don’t think it will bring down the monarchy but I do think the monarchy more now than at any time relies very heavily on the next generation of William, Kate and their family and for their accession to be seen as a significant renewal and page turn.
If they’re not already thinking about Crown revenues, how the Duchies operate, who is/isn’t a working royal, how the titles get dished out and who is on the payroll, they need to be.
Charles has been doing that for over three years.
The Queen's idea was you had lots of royals, most of them fairly part-time, making them highly visible and in all parts of national life, and spread the money thinly to make it work.
Charles' idea is to have just a few senior working royals, and use the money to raise their profile and really show an impact. That's one reason he had a big falling out with Harry (and quite possibly another reason why he fell out with Andy, although it doesn't seem they ever got on well). He's pruned the family to essentially himself, Camilla, William and Katherine, Anne and Edward (who seems to have a special role with the DofE award).
His approach is logical and has given a convenient pretext to chop out some very dead wood, but comes with drawbacks. When he and Catherine both had cancer an awful lot of the burden of keeping things going fell on Camilla and Anne, neither of whom are spring chickens. And when in the next few years they either snuff it or retire a huge amount will fall on William and his family.
They are extremely lucky to have Catherine
William chose well. Catherine is like the late Queen. Impeccably polite and well behaved, with some instinctive sense of decorum while managing to be personable
If William had married a Sarah Ferguson type, or a Meghan, then the monarchy would have been in very serious trouble
My niece was at St Andrews at the same time. Her view was that it was Catherine who chose William.
In which case the Royal Family are even more lucky to have her. She clearly knows what the job is, and does it well.
If the less savoury rumours about William are right then he hasn't exactly been suitably grateful for what she has done for him.
Oh FFS not this again. The rumour about William and Rose Hanbury was started by Giles Coren (as he has admitted and apologised for) as a joke at the opening of Soho House Amsterdam whilst partying with Meghan Markle and others.
And definitely no need to get Harry back, he, like Andrew, is a brainless entitled prick who slagged of his family and the country for his own benefit because he was too stupid to realise that the only reason anyone gave the tiniest shit about what he says or does is by virtue of him being born to the King and not because he has anything useful, inciteful or original to say.
How old are William & Kate's children? Surely won't be too long before they're getting into the public gaze, and the youngest looks to have the makings of being a 'bit of a scamp'!
William is good looking (thanks to his mum maybe). Now he’s gone for stubble he looks macho despite the baldness. Catherine is exceptionally good looking
Their kids should be stunners when they reach late teens which will help, a lot. It’s trivial and shallow, it is also true
In the coming age of robotic weirdness a human royal family might become much more valuable to a nation, emotionally
Peter Mandelson is utterly disgraced, could end up in prison and breathtaking revelations are damaging Labour and a PM who made him our man in Washington. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and ex-wife Sarah Ferguson could bring down the monarchy.
Now remind me again Kev about McBride and attending those meetings planning to set up a fake news website to smear Osborne and alike. The brass neck of these people.
I don’t think it will bring down the monarchy but I do think the monarchy more now than at any time relies very heavily on the next generation of William, Kate and their family and for their accession to be seen as a significant renewal and page turn.
If they’re not already thinking about Crown revenues, how the Duchies operate, who is/isn’t a working royal, how the titles get dished out and who is on the payroll, they need to be.
Charles has been doing that for over three years.
The Queen's idea was you had lots of royals, most of them fairly part-time, making them highly visible and in all parts of national life, and spread the money thinly to make it work.
Charles' idea is to have just a few senior working royals, and use the money to raise their profile and really show an impact. That's one reason he had a big falling out with Harry (and quite possibly another reason why he fell out with Andy, although it doesn't seem they ever got on well). He's pruned the family to essentially himself, Camilla, William and Katherine, Anne and Edward (who seems to have a special role with the DofE award).
His approach is logical and has given a convenient pretext to chop out some very dead wood, but comes with drawbacks. When he and Catherine both had cancer an awful lot of the burden of keeping things going fell on Camilla and Anne, neither of whom are spring chickens. And when in the next few years they either snuff it or retire a huge amount will fall on William and his family.
They are extremely lucky to have Catherine
William chose well. Catherine is like the late Queen. Impeccably polite and well behaved, with some instinctive sense of decorum while managing to be personable
If William had married a Sarah Ferguson type, or a Meghan, then the monarchy would have been in very serious trouble
My niece was at St Andrews at the same time. Her view was that it was Catherine who chose William.
In which case the Royal Family are even more lucky to have her. She clearly knows what the job is, and does it well.
If the less savoury rumours about William are right then he hasn't exactly been suitably grateful for what she has done for him.
Oh FFS not this again. The rumour about William and Rose Hanbury was started by Giles Coren (as he has admitted and apologised for) as a joke at the opening of Soho House Amsterdam whilst partying with Meghan Markle and others.
And definitely no need to get Harry back, he, like Andrew, is a brainless entitled prick who slagged of his family and the country for his own benefit because he was too stupid to realise that the only reason anyone gave the tiniest shit about what he says or does is by virtue of him being born to the King and not because he has anything useful, inciteful or original to say.
How old are William & Kate's children? Surely won't be too long before they're getting into the public gaze, and the youngest looks to have the makings of being a 'bit of a scamp'!
William is good looking (thanks to his mum maybe). Now he’s gone for stubble he looks macho despite the baldness. Catherine is exceptionally good looking
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
There seems to be something about being in your underpants that excites Labour Lords.
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
A wild X rumour claims it’s Meghan
I don’t believe it for a minute, but you can see why it has arisen. The posture, the skin tone, the stature, the hand gesture - it all fits
And of course we all want it to be Meghan because then this fabulously baroque scandal gets even more voluted
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
A wild X rumour claims it’s Meghan
I don’t believe it for a minute, but you can see why it has arisen. The posture, the skin tone, the stature, the hand gesture - it all fits
And of course we all want it to be Meghan because then this fabulously baroque scandal gets even more voluted
Thanks Leon. Doesn't matter if there's any truth in it. Scandal and speculation is what we need here.
The site and the Flintknappers are fortunate to have you.
Given we have AI that can perfectly segment out objects in a scene, which makes it trival to then fill them in black, it amazing how amateurish the redactions are.
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
We've been led to believe he's not a ladies' man
I suspect its choosing lunch.
She’s in a bathrobe and he’s in underpants. This is not normal lunch-choosing behaviour
What are the odds on Starmer going this year? Anything kinder than evens is a BUY
It's odds on. 1.85. In from 1.95 due to this. Not much of a change really.
1.85 looks decent enough odds to me. It depends a bit on what Starmer's defence is. If he can say his vetting agencies didn't bring the risk to his attention, he may hang on for a bit, but even them he's in deep doo doo because he really ought to have known what a risk he was taking even without being told explicitly. It's not as if Mandy didn't have form.
If Starmer was properly informed and cautioned he will be out in no time at all. I doubt he can lie about it. His top security advisers will not allow themselves to be thrown under a bus to save his career.
I expect he's covered in the sense that he was unaware of the subsequent revelations, but yes he's in trouble (and was before this) and I wouldn't now argue with him being a shade of odds-on to exit this year.
I'm glad to hear that Farage is duly disgusted by friends and associates of billionaire paedos with criminal records.
Genuinely not sure what you're referring to.
Since he took office for the second time, Donald Trump has exploited his position to become a genuine billionaire.
His criminal record is .. a matter of record.
So what ? Why should we give a toss about Trump ?
Here we have a government that is jumping the shark by making BoJo look a model of propriety.
Why should we care about a man frantically trying to distract attention from being outed as a paedo by invading random foreign countries and having people shot on the streets of the USA?
Well, gee, like Mandelson in *that* photo it's not hard.
Given we have AI that can perfectly segment out objects in a scene, which makes it trival to then fill them in black, it amazing how amateurish the redactions are.
Maybe it is skilful. Maybe we are being fed just so much as somebody wants us to see....
Peter Mandelson is utterly disgraced, could end up in prison and breathtaking revelations are damaging Labour and a PM who made him our man in Washington. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and ex-wife Sarah Ferguson could bring down the monarchy.
Now remind me again Kev about McBride and attending those meetings planning to set up a fake news website to smear Osborne and alike. The brass neck of these people.
I don’t think it will bring down the monarchy but I do think the monarchy more now than at any time relies very heavily on the next generation of William, Kate and their family and for their accession to be seen as a significant renewal and page turn.
If they’re not already thinking about Crown revenues, how the Duchies operate, who is/isn’t a working royal, how the titles get dished out and who is on the payroll, they need to be.
Charles has been doing that for over three years.
The Queen's idea was you had lots of royals, most of them fairly part-time, making them highly visible and in all parts of national life, and spread the money thinly to make it work.
Charles' idea is to have just a few senior working royals, and use the money to raise their profile and really show an impact. That's one reason he had a big falling out with Harry (and quite possibly another reason why he fell out with Andy, although it doesn't seem they ever got on well). He's pruned the family to essentially himself, Camilla, William and Katherine, Anne and Edward (who seems to have a special role with the DofE award).
His approach is logical and has given a convenient pretext to chop out some very dead wood, but comes with drawbacks. When he and Catherine both had cancer an awful lot of the burden of keeping things going fell on Camilla and Anne, neither of whom are spring chickens. And when in the next few years they either snuff it or retire a huge amount will fall on William and his family.
The Royal Family would benefit from a return of Harry from the States.
I think that's probably more important than any of the reforms around crown revenues, duchies of here, there or wherever, that most people know nothing about. Harry is a personality. He seems genuinely interested in using his accident of birth for good. Whatever else William might be thinking of in terms of reform he needs to be working on a reconciliation with his brother.
Nope!
If he comes back, it will be on his own and he’ll be sharing an apartment with Andrew.
You can’t walk back from writing books and making documentaries sh!tting on your own family, and ever expect a reconciliation.
Forgiveness is a Christian virtue, and for all that Harry has done that has been damaging, having him back and being a positive face for the royalty with his charitable work would be a benefit.
And who else is there? Edward is 61. He's the youngest in that generation and age will catch up with him before too long. William and Kate won't be able to do it all by themselves.
Harry’s done nothing charitable, it’s all been lining his own pockets via US foundation companies. Even the Invictus games, which could have been his legacy in a similar way to the Duke of Edinburgh Award, have been monetised by Harry personally.
Edward’s kids are coming of age, they can be the future working royals of the next generation.
My wife has met Edward. Seemed a good egg with a sense of humour. Sophie somewhat grander but she was, by all accounts, highly regarded by the late Queen, who relied on her. So if the kids take after them could be assets for the Firm.
Given we have AI that can perfectly segment out objects in a scene, which makes it trival to then fill them in black, it amazing how amateurish the redactions are.
Maybe it is skilful. Maybe we are being fed just so much as somebody wants us to see....
Spooky.
Well if it wasn't the Trump mafia doing this I think you might be on to something. They are serial incomponents.
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
A wild X rumour claims it’s Meghan
I don’t believe it for a minute, but you can see why it has arisen. The posture, the skin tone, the stature, the hand gesture - it all fits
And of course we all want it to be Meghan because then this fabulously baroque scandal gets even more voluted
Thanks Leon. Doesn't matter if there's any truth in it. Scandal and speculation is what we need here.
The site and the Flintknappers are fortunate to have you.
"Facts can be so misleading, where rumours, true or false, are often revealing!" - Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds.
Surely they're not going to waste time on changing HoL rules when they should just be abolishing and replacing it?
How to remove his title is now the question
I seem to recall back in the day there was some talk of removing Jeffrey Archer's title, but nothing came of it. Of course, his indiscretions were as nothing compared to the perfidy ascribed to Lord M. In fact that era seems an age of innocence compared to now. Who now shudders at the memory of the "Tory sleaze" of John Major's years?
If they can take away Andrew's princely title, then Mandy's barony is surely a goner.
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
We've been led to believe he's not a ladies' man
I suspect its choosing lunch.
She’s in a bathrobe and he’s in underpants. This is not normal lunch-choosing behaviour
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
A wild X rumour claims it’s Meghan
I don’t believe it for a minute, but you can see why it has arisen. The posture, the skin tone, the stature, the hand gesture - it all fits
And of course we all want it to be Meghan because then this fabulously baroque scandal gets even more voluted
Perhaps Meghan was trying to convert Mandelson to heterosexuality.
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
There seems to be something about being in your underpants that excites Labour Lords.
Sir Chris Bryant set the tone.
What impresses me is that the pants look so smart and clean. If caught in a similar pose I am sure mine would have been baggy, old fashioned and with a hole in the arse.
And you have to wonder how the picture came to be taken, and how Mandy and this gorgeous, lightly dressed young woman came to be photographed in such an intriguing pose.
Peter Mandelson is utterly disgraced, could end up in prison and breathtaking revelations are damaging Labour and a PM who made him our man in Washington. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and ex-wife Sarah Ferguson could bring down the monarchy.
Now remind me again Kev about McBride and attending those meetings planning to set up a fake news website to smear Osborne and alike. The brass neck of these people.
I don’t think it will bring down the monarchy but I do think the monarchy more now than at any time relies very heavily on the next generation of William, Kate and their family and for their accession to be seen as a significant renewal and page turn.
If they’re not already thinking about Crown revenues, how the Duchies operate, who is/isn’t a working royal, how the titles get dished out and who is on the payroll, they need to be.
Charles has been doing that for over three years.
The Queen's idea was you had lots of royals, most of them fairly part-time, making them highly visible and in all parts of national life, and spread the money thinly to make it work.
Charles' idea is to have just a few senior working royals, and use the money to raise their profile and really show an impact. That's one reason he had a big falling out with Harry (and quite possibly another reason why he fell out with Andy, although it doesn't seem they ever got on well). He's pruned the family to essentially himself, Camilla, William and Katherine, Anne and Edward (who seems to have a special role with the DofE award).
His approach is logical and has given a convenient pretext to chop out some very dead wood, but comes with drawbacks. When he and Catherine both had cancer an awful lot of the burden of keeping things going fell on Camilla and Anne, neither of whom are spring chickens. And when in the next few years they either snuff it or retire a huge amount will fall on William and his family.
The Royal Family would benefit from a return of Harry from the States.
I think that's probably more important than any of the reforms around crown revenues, duchies of here, there or wherever, that most people know nothing about. Harry is a personality. He seems genuinely interested in using his accident of birth for good. Whatever else William might be thinking of in terms of reform he needs to be working on a reconciliation with his brother.
Nope!
If he comes back, it will be on his own and he’ll be sharing an apartment with Andrew.
You can’t walk back from writing books and making documentaries sh!tting on your own family, and ever expect a reconciliation.
Forgiveness is a Christian virtue, and for all that Harry has done that has been damaging, having him back and being a positive face for the royalty with his charitable work would be a benefit.
And who else is there? Edward is 61. He's the youngest in that generation and age will catch up with him before too long. William and Kate won't be able to do it all by themselves.
Harry’s done nothing charitable, it’s all been lining his own pockets via US foundation companies. Even the Invictus games, which could have been his legacy in a similar way to the Duke of Edinburgh Award, have been monetised by Harry personally.
Edward’s kids are coming of age, they can be the future working royals of the next generation.
My wife has met Edward. Seemed a good egg with a sense of humour. Sophie somewhat grander but she was, by all accounts, highly regarded by the late Queen, who relied on her. So if the kids take after them could be assets for the Firm.
He is very inoffensive. Not entirely sure about his sense of humour - he is normally in good spirits but his jokes at graduation usually fall rather flat. I might be the way he tells them.
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
There seems to be something about being in your underpants that excites Labour Lords.
Sir Chris Bryant set the tone.
What impresses me is that the pants look so smart and clean. If caught in a similar pose I am sure mine would have been baggy, old fashioned and with a hole in the arse.
And you have to wonder how the picture came to be taken, and how Mandy and this gorgeous, lightly dressed young woman came to be photographed in such an intriguing pose.
Who is behind the camera?
It seems Maxwell is in a very limited number of photos, so I always presumed she is the one who is making sure to gain the kompermat.
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
There seems to be something about being in your underpants that excites Labour Lords.
Sir Chris Bryant set the tone.
What impresses me is that the pants look so smart and clean. If caught in a similar pose I am sure mine would have been baggy, old fashioned and with a hole in the arse.
And you have to wonder how the picture came to be taken, and how Mandy and this gorgeous, lightly dressed young woman came to be photographed in such an intriguing pose.
Comments
· 14s
scoop:
Mandelson about to quit House of Lords
Now legislation is still needed to strip him of his title.
Whereas the polling average has Labour just about convincingly in second place and Reform ahead, but probably not yet by enough to win next time. It's bad for Starmer's government, but (so far) it's not that bad.
So far.
Seems a lifetime ago.
It’s easy to say “waiting lists down 100k people this month, 30k better than last month, aren’t we awesome?”
It’s way more difficult to say “50k people died waiting for an operation this month”.
Apparently Mandelson and MacSweeney are politically very close.
The New Labour project has been irredeemably soiled by the emails. Starmer is now tainted by Epstein. There is no way back. It is Boris and Pincher time.
Tidying up waiting lists like this has been routine throughout my professional life under governments of all stripes. It is key to having accurate statistics and also making maximum use of facilities by not sending for people innappropriately. Current management are going through anyone on RTT (Referal to Treatment) where there's a risk that they will be over 52 weeks at the end of March. This is done on an individual patient level with a plan for each.
New email: Epstein and businessman/lawyer David Stern, talking about Mandelson as if he's on retainer.
Epstein says "Do we need help - mandelson?"
The reply: "too early to get Mandelson involved"
Quick thread:
https://bsky.app/profile/danneidle.bsky.social/post/3mdxmjed5k52v
Eulogising that Mandelson was most impressive person he ever met in EU Parliament, always on his brief.
Chastising the questioner that his peerage was not the key issue.
Getting very tetchy when questioned about Bannon and Bannon links to Epstein and Mandelson
Lukewarm support for Badenoch if motion is limited to Ambassador appointment.
No wonder on that it would be blinkered and nieve to ask about Ambassador appointment now when millions of post appointment Epstein mail dumps have clearly shown wholly new evidence from mail channels that no government department could have known about.
If Badenoch tries to pin Starmer on Ambassador appointment he'll tie her in procedural knots and show her as just being shouty and wholly missing far bigger points.
And who else is there? Edward is 61. He's the youngest in that generation and age will catch up with him before too long. William and Kate won't be able to do it all by themselves.
Edit - although with that wicket and Peake injured maybe England can cling on?
No journalist writes for “physical publication” any more. They ALL write for eyes and clicks, because that’s what generates engagement and therefore advertising and subscriptions
How to please an editor? Get to the top of the “most read” list. They barely give a fuck about anything else
You can have the best idea in the world, and you might be able to phrase it like Milton, but if “that subject just bombs online” then they’re not gonna run it
Interesting that Starmer is in serious peril whilst Trump claims the latest drop exonerates him fully and he has never been stronger. According to Trump, Clinton and Gates have had their game tumbled and are looking at Epstein jail time.
But trial before punishment surely?
Edward’s kids are coming of age, they can be the future working royals of the next generation.
Well played that man.
This is no longer savable for Starmer. This is Pincher level peril verging on Profumo.
Starmer is in Johnson-Pincher danger and Mandelson's behaviour whilst Business Secretary is Profumo level bad. I was thinking Stonehouse, but this is far, far worse.
As Sam Coates of Sky says McSweeney going would focus then on Starmer and his position
There is no doubt of the fury of labour backbenchers on this
What Mandelson did in Cabinet was unforgivable. Now Starmer couldn't have known that level of deception, but he knew enough about Mandelson to give Washington to someone else. It was a gamble. Starmer won, then he lost, big time.
And definitely no need to get Harry back, he, like Andrew, is a brainless entitled prick who slagged of his family and the country for his own benefit because he was too stupid to realise that the only reason anyone gave the tiniest shit about what he says or does is by virtue of him being born to the King and not because he has anything useful, inciteful or original to say.
Heh England win.
Reinaldo Avila da Silva did not graduate from an osteopathy course and has never been registered with the General Osteopathic Council (GOsC). Therefore, he is not able to practise osteopathy in accordance with the law within the UK.
All osteopaths are highly trained in standards of competence and ethics to keep patients safe, and are required to maintain their knowledge, skills and behaviours in accordance with our standards. We have powers to restrict or remove the registration of osteopaths who do not meet our standards for the purposes of public protection.
Section 32(1) of the Osteopaths Act 1993 (the 1993 Act) makes it a criminal offence for a person who is not registered with the GOsC to describe themselves, either expressly or by implication, as any kind of osteopath. S32(1) applies to the United Kingdom.
https://www.osteopathy.org.uk/news-and-resources/news/our-statement-on-reports-of-jeffrey-epstein-funding-osteopathy/
#pedanticbetting.com
Bear in mind Mandelson's duplicity harmed his Cabinet colleagues more than the nation at large. He absolutely rogered Brown backwards.
It would also appear that the request will be for all documentation regarding the appointment to be made public.
That is a very blinkered and limiting question.
I'd bet Starmer and the Labour front bench would be mighty relieved.
Answer from Starmer.
We wholeheartedly support the request. We will vote for the motion. We will cooperate fully. We support a full independent enquiry.
Safe in the knowledge NONE of the incendiary evidence released in the Epstein files was valid.
Safe in the knowledge that past concerns were considered but nothing new comes out that wasn't known at the time.
The judgement then would be based on known risk but not hindsight of the subsequent Epstein dumps.
Starmer remains PM McSweeney is sacrificed, Labour close ranks. Local Election results then far less concerning for Starmer as the boil lanced is McSweeney.
Doesn’t that principle apply generally to the Windsor-Mountbatten-Saxburg-Epsteins?
Btw, I see James Rew did very well today. Does this mean the senior team can now dispatch Jamie Smith into well merited obscurity?
Master stroke by My learned friend.
Comply
Comply
Comply
Cannot answer any questions due to an ongoing police investigation
None valid? Bold...
The person who could throw a big brick in a small pond on this is Gordon Brown.
If Starmer was properly informed and cautioned he will be out in no time at all. I doubt he can lie about it. His top security advisers will not allow themselves to be thrown under a bus to save his career.
And do not forget even before this labour mps were plotting against him
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
Their kids should be stunners when they reach late teens which will help, a lot. It’s trivial and shallow, it is also true
In the coming age of robotic weirdness a human royal family might become much more valuable to a nation, emotionally
His criminal record is .. a matter of record.
Sir Chris Bryant set the tone.
I don’t believe it for a minute, but you can see why it has arisen. The posture, the skin tone, the stature, the hand gesture - it all fits
And of course we all want it to be Meghan because then this fabulously baroque scandal gets even more voluted
Thanks for pointing out the error. I should have figured James wouldn't be in the U19 squad, but they do funny things these days.
Here we have a government that is jumping the shark by making BoJo look a model of propriety.
The site and the Flintknappers are fortunate to have you.
Unless you had an orgy the night before
Well, gee, like Mandelson in *that* photo it's not hard.
Spooky.
If they can take away Andrew's princely title, then Mandy's barony is surely a goner.
And you have to wonder how the picture came to be taken, and how Mandy and this gorgeous, lightly dressed young woman came to be photographed in such an intriguing pose.
Who is behind the camera?
Farage mentioned 37 times in released dicuments
Starrner 0
Kemi 0
Ed 0
Nick Candy seriously implicated with Ghislaine Maxwell
Bannon clearly implicated with Farage and Tommy Robinson
Labour can and would survive post Starmer, possibly thrive even
Nigel Farage Is Reforn
If he crashes and burns so does Reform
Biggest winner Ben Habib