Taz, Michael Lonsdale was excellent. He played the detective in the original film of "Day of the Jackal" and the French ambassador in "The Remains of the Day." He also popped up in a couple of episode of the French version of Maigret with Bruno Cremer in the title role. ....
And who can forget his Drax in Moonraker.
""James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season."
Best line in the series.
The hill I die on is that is the best Bond movie, in spite of the similarities to its predecessor
There's an in depth discussion of Moonraker on Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avery's "Video Archives" podcast where Roger attempts to convince Quentin of the same view.
Ooh, I hope he succeeded. It’s just glorious and one of the greatest themes too. Octopussy being my favourite. Even though she sings it too high for me to sing along to. 🥺
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
I was assuming that the engine was still on when they discovered the issue with the switch.
They say that they had an issue with the switch on the ground at Heathrow, when they went to switch on the engine before the flight. They say the switch didn’t engage properly in the ‘run’ position. It’s a switch that controls the fuel line to the engine.
The previous accident was almost certainly a pilot suicide, but both the airline and Indian authorities are really struggling culturally with that explanation for 241 deaths.
Hang on!
I thought they WERE blaming the pilot to cover less than optimal maintenance issues!
Other way round, at least for the crash last year.
What actually happpened on Sunday at Heathrow airport is anyone’s guess, but the most likely is a pilot or the pilots’ union wanting to make it appear that there’s problems in general with these switches. There’s hundreds of 787s out there, and no problems with anyone except Air India.
Taking off with a suspected faulty fuel cutoff switch would be a genuine WTF for any pilot. They’d have called maintenance and had it replaced. Not just gone on a nine-hour flight and grounded the plane at the other end.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
I was assuming that the engine was still on when they discovered the issue with the switch.
They say that they had an issue with the switch on the ground at Heathrow, when they went to switch on the engine before the flight. They say the switch didn’t engage properly in the ‘run’ position. It’s a switch that controls the fuel line to the engine.
The previous accident was almost certainly a pilot suicide, but both the airline and Indian authorities are really struggling culturally with that explanation for 241 deaths.
Hang on!
I thought they WERE blaming the pilot to cover less than optimal maintenance issues!
Other way round, at least for the crash last year.
What actually happpened on Sunday at Heathrow airport is anyone’s guess, but the most likely is a pilot or the pilots’ union wanting to make it appear that there’s problems in general with these switches. There’s hundreds of 787s out there, and no problems with anyone except Air India.
Taking off with a suspected faulty fuel cutoff switch would be a genuine WTF for any pilot. They’d have called maintenance and had it replaced. Not just gone on a nine-hour flight and grounded the plane at the other end.
If the aircraft involved at Ahmedabad (VT-ANB) had undergone its 12 year D-Check or a substantial retrofit program earlier, this accident may never have happened. There is evidence of deferred maintenance on VT-ANB and despite regular line preventative maintenance, the amount of corrective maintenance was unusually high.
If the security service didn't tell Starmer that Mandelson knew Epstein more than "barely knew" then what the f is the point of them?
I suspect that that's going the nub of the matter.
Were you told? If Starmer was told, he is done for.
It not, why not? The answer to this question could be almost as damaging as the first. Was the inquiry thwarted from the start? Starmer would be in big trouble if people had been lent on to not dig up too much dirt. Even if it was simply incompetence it could be very damaging. You can't bang on about putting national security first if we can't even vet someone like Mandelson properly.
Unless the evidence shows that a thorough inquiry was performed, and Starmer was given the all-clear to appoint Mandelson, I think he's got to go.
Lord help him if the remaining documents come out and show Mandelson in an even worse light.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
NImrods routinely did it but those crews would have welcomed a crash to get away from the Honkers.
Guys in blue do lots of silly things that civvy aviation definitely don’t.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 21s Not sure if I misheard. But Starmer seems to be claiming Mandelson told him he “barely knew” Epstein. Which he then believed. I cannot comprehend how he thinks that line will be seen as credible. We all saw the photos of them palling around buying clothes together.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3m Keir Starmer, staggeringly, says he had no reason to disbelieve Mandelson when he told him he barely knew Epstein. That is simply not credible.
Starmer might have survived all of this* had he embraced this line of argument.
It would be pretty remarkable if the Epstein scandal took down Keir Starmer while Trump's creepy old ass sits in the Oval Office telling women who ask about Epstein's victims to smile more. https://x.com/TVietor08/status/2019181889450315786
But for some reason he and everyone else are still in thrall to the whole special relationship with Trump's creepy old ass..
*OK, that's a bit fanciful, as he has no instincts at all for political warfare.
Starmer's now backtracking on his statement at PMQs.
How do you ( personally) square the circle of cheering Starmer's demise over Mandelson's lies which were busted by the latest drop of Epstein files and Trump's asserted and accepted claim that the latest drop exonerates him and he barely met Epstein?
To get back to insiders, apols if I missed it but has there been anny comment on Bezos laying off a huge chunk of the Washington Post's journalists? That cnut arsing about with penis shaped rockets and multi $m weddings in Venice while turning a serious newspaper into Völkischer Beobachter epitomises the state we're in.
I'm not generally someone who does protests or boycotts, but I am so revolted by Bezos' recent antics that I have actually resolved to stop using Amazon. I have been spending £3k-6k a year with them for at least 20 years. No more. No Prime, no Audible, no physical goods through the post. It's going to cost me maybe 5% extra on that spend, plus some extra time finding new sources for some stuff, but I'm so p****d off at this new kakistocracy.
Amazon are often not the cheapest places to buy things these days. The plague of dodgy Chinese sellers (both brands you never heard of playing the algorithm to get listed high up and as FBA sellers) is also a big negative.
Yeah, that was already starting to turn me off to be fair. Even if I knew exactly what I wanted so eg searched for "Anker 60w usb-c charger" the site would bloat the results with cheap crappy alternatives I hadn't asked for and that had no business being weighted so heavily in the results.
And their habit of “binning” products from different vendors means that the fakes are in the same pile as the real items.
So you could buy from the manufacturers store on Amazon. And get a fake.
Yup. And things like Anker chargers are just the kind of thing that get faked.
I definitely wouldn't buy anything of that nature from there - it is asking for trouble.
Cheap chargers are quite the hazard.
Never buy climbing gear online. Never ever. Some horrifying stories about quickdraws in particular.
Don’t buy anything that will kill you if it fails or is faulty, from any source you don’t implicitly trust.
It’s quite amazing that it needs to be said. There’s a lot of fake Chinese safety gear out there, that’s not as strong as it says it is.
The thing is that the state has realised for centuries that it's an aid to commerce if trade is regulated so that buyers can trust what they're buying from sellers. Hence the standardisation of weights and measures. The laws against mixing chalk into flour, etc. Roadworthiness tests for cars.
This seems to have broken down recently.
Indeed, so , and then in 2000 we, the West, let China join the WTO.
If the security service didn't tell Starmer that Mandelson knew Epstein more than "barely knew" then what the f is the point of them?
Lets be honest, everyone knew Mandelson knew Epstein and maintained a friendship, not just Starmer but anyone with a passing interest in politics, including the opposition and press who didnt make a big thing of the connection at the time (it was mentioned and criticised in passing but not seen as a scandal).
What most of us didn't know was the leaking of financial information to the extent that Mandelson clearly had zero loyalty to the governments he served.
Starmer's now backtracking on his statement at PMQs.
How do you ( personally) square the circle of cheering Starmer's demise over Mandelson's lies which were busted by the latest drop of Epstein files and Trump's asserted and accepted claim that the latest drop exonerates him and he barely met Epstein?
You can't; the idea is completely absurd.
But Starmer can't make that argument as he never left poodle mode regarding Trump.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3m Keir Starmer, staggeringly, says he had no reason to disbelieve Mandelson when he told him he barely knew Epstein. That is simply not credible.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3m Keir Starmer, staggeringly, says he had no reason to disbelieve Mandelson when he told him he barely knew Epstein. That is simply not credible.
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3m Keir Starmer, staggeringly, says he had no reason to disbelieve Mandelson when he told him he barely knew Epstein. That is simply not credible.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3m Keir Starmer, staggeringly, says he had no reason to disbelieve Mandelson when he told him he barely knew Epstein. That is simply not credible.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
NImrods routinely did it but those crews would have welcomed a crash to get away from the Honkers.
Guys in blue do lots of silly things that civvy aviation definitely don’t.
Starmer might have survived all of this* had he embraced this line of argument.
It would be pretty remarkable if the Epstein scandal took down Keir Starmer while Trump's creepy old ass sits in the Oval Office telling women who ask about Epstein's victims to smile more. https://x.com/TVietor08/status/2019181889450315786
But for some reason he and everyone else are still in thrall to the whole special relationship with Trump's creepy old ass..
*OK, that's a bit fanciful, as he has no instincts at all for political warfare.
Makes you proud to be British. Despite everything, we do still cling to some values that the Americans have entirely discarded.
We might bin a PM twice removed from Epstein. Meanwhile, Trump, who is actually in the files and had umpteen allegations against him...
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3m Keir Starmer, staggeringly, says he had no reason to disbelieve Mandelson when he told him he barely knew Epstein. That is simply not credible.
Morning all. Liked the header..... thanks, Gareth otV. I must say that at the time I thought the appointment of Mandelson to be Ambassador to be odd, but that it might turn out to be inspired. TBH, I still think it might have been but then his history came out and one clearly couldn't trust him an inch. So Starmer, atypically,, gambled and lost. Badly. And, politics being what it is heads, or at least one, have to roll. It was Starmer's decision in the final analysis but you could argue that his chief adviser out to take the heat.
OTOH Prisons minister / timpson? Seems to have worked.
As a matter of interest, how long does it take for Labour to elect a new leader ? The council elections are going to be murder for Labour if Starmer is still in post.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3m Keir Starmer, staggeringly, says he had no reason to disbelieve Mandelson when he told him he barely knew Epstein. That is simply not credible.
To get back to insiders, apols if I missed it but has there been anny comment on Bezos laying off a huge chunk of the Washington Post's journalists? That cnut arsing about with penis shaped rockets and multi $m weddings in Venice while turning a serious newspaper into Völkischer Beobachter epitomises the state we're in.
I'm not generally someone who does protests or boycotts, but I am so revolted by Bezos' recent antics that I have actually resolved to stop using Amazon. I have been spending £3k-6k a year with them for at least 20 years. No more. No Prime, no Audible, no physical goods through the post. It's going to cost me maybe 5% extra on that spend, plus some extra time finding new sources for some stuff, but I'm so p****d off at this new kakistocracy.
Amazon are often not the cheapest places to buy things these days. The plague of dodgy Chinese sellers (both brands you never heard of playing the algorithm to get listed high up and as FBA sellers) is also a big negative.
Yeah, that was already starting to turn me off to be fair. Even if I knew exactly what I wanted so eg searched for "Anker 60w usb-c charger" the site would bloat the results with cheap crappy alternatives I hadn't asked for and that had no business being weighted so heavily in the results.
And their habit of “binning” products from different vendors means that the fakes are in the same pile as the real items.
So you could buy from the manufacturers store on Amazon. And get a fake.
Yup. And things like Anker chargers are just the kind of thing that get faked.
I definitely wouldn't buy anything of that nature from there - it is asking for trouble.
Cheap chargers are quite the hazard.
Never buy climbing gear online. Never ever. Some horrifying stories about quickdraws in particular.
Don’t buy anything that will kill you if it fails or is faulty, from any source you don’t implicitly trust.
It’s quite amazing that it needs to be said. There’s a lot of fake Chinese safety gear out there, that’s not as strong as it says it is.
The thing is that the state has realised for centuries that it's an aid to commerce if trade is regulated so that buyers can trust what they're buying from sellers. Hence the standardisation of weights and measures. The laws against mixing chalk into flour, etc. Roadworthiness tests for cars.
This seems to have broken down recently.
What has broken down is *enforecement*
When the Medievals passed laws on chalk in flour etc, they appointed people to go and inspect.
Now we have 100,000 page regulation. And houses being built without insulation in the voids. Because no one is checking.
Whenever the Government regulates, it creates a delta between obeying and disobeying the law. It’s a debt - and unless it is honoured by enforcement, it will go unpaid.
As a matter of interest, how long does it take for Labour to elect a new leader ? The council elections are going to be murder for Labour if Starmer is still in post.
They can have an interim leader.
Lammy or Cooper could be 'kissing hands' by 5pm tonight as temp. PM (assuming neither plans to run in the leadership contest)
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
As a matter of interest, how long does it take for Labour to elect a new leader ? The council elections are going to be murder for Labour if Starmer is still in post.
The last Labour leadership election was 4 months long
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
Why can he not admit that this was the basis on which he appointed Mandelson and instead has to construct an obviously fictitious narrative that makes him the victim?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3m Keir Starmer, staggeringly, says he had no reason to disbelieve Mandelson when he told him he barely knew Epstein. That is simply not credible.
Mandy, a man who up until that had an exemplary record with telling the truth.
So as DPP, if the defendants pleaded not guilty in a vaguely plausible manner, he folded the case and everyone went home?
Well the CPS were quite shit under this leadership. Something that doesn't seem to get enough scrutiny when he leans on it.
What chance that one of the Sundays will have a new take on the old Jimmy Savile non-prosecution story, that Starmer previously asserted never crossed his desk?
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
NImrods routinely did it but those crews would have welcomed a crash to get away from the Honkers.
Guys in blue do lots of silly things that civvy aviation definitely don’t. Reversers in flight is a good one, or tactical approaches. Most airlines use derated takeoffs as well, because they have to pay for their own engine maintenance. Look up “balanced field” or “assumed temperature”.
I seem to recall a ?German pilot committing suicide and murder by crashing a plane-load of returning holidaymakers. Five or so years ago?
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
The problem he has is that he should just say he made a decision knowing the previous ties and in hindsight it was a terrible decision.
He isn’t willing to do that so he is trying to contort himself into very awkward and untenable positions about what he was told and what he relied on rather than the basic point which is - it was a bad idea and I messed up in hindsight.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 50s That press conference has made things incalculably worse for Starmer. He could - just - try and defend the line he believed Mandelson when he said he cut off the relationship. But not that he “barely knew him”. I’d now be surprised if Starmer is still PM this time next week.
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
Why can he not admit that this was the basis on which he appointed Mandelson and instead has to construct an obviously fictitious narrative that makes him the victim?
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
As a matter of interest, how long does it take for Labour to elect a new leader ? The council elections are going to be murder for Labour if Starmer is still in post.
The last Labour leadership election was 4 months long
As a matter of interest, how long does it take for Labour to elect a new leader ? The council elections are going to be murder for Labour if Starmer is still in post.
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
The problem he has is that he should just say he made a decision knowing the previous ties and in hindsight it was a terrible decision.
He isn’t willing to do that so he is trying to contort himself into very awkward and untenable positions about what he was told and what he relied on rather than the basic point which is - it was a bad idea and I messed up in hindsight.
I couldn't agree more. Further advice from Morgan McSweeney?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 21s Not sure if I misheard. But Starmer seems to be claiming Mandelson told him he “barely knew” Epstein. Which he then believed. I cannot comprehend how he thinks that line will be seen as credible. We all saw the photos of them palling around buying clothes together.
Starmer is now desperately spinning that Mandelson is a sh*t and has always been a sh*t, despite him being intrinsically linked to all Labour governments of the past 3 decades.
If the security service didn't tell Starmer that Mandelson knew Epstein more than "barely knew" then what the f is the point of them?
Lets be honest, everyone knew Mandelson knew Epstein and maintained a friendship, not just Starmer but anyone with a passing interest in politics, including the opposition and press who didnt make a big thing of the connection at the time (it was mentioned and criticised in passing but not seen as a scandal).
What most of us didn't know was the leaking of financial information to the extent that Mandelson clearly had zero loyalty to the governments he served.
Though Mandelson’s habit of leaking everything he was told in confidence was known.
IIRC, this was a part of the reason John Prescott (mentioned earlier) didn’t like him.
Starmer says of Mandelson and Epstein that it had been public for some time 'that they knew each other'
But what was in the public domain went beyond that - it's not just a case that they were acquaintances. There was clear evidence they were close friends
At the time of the appointment Starmer was aware of the internal JP Morgan report on Epstein which included this line:
“Jeffrey Epstein appears to maintain a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of the British government”
This wasn't some fly-by night report. It was from a very detailed, forensic audit conducted by one of the World's biggest banks that emerged in 2023. That report was referenced in the Cabinet Office's due diligence report
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
She's been rubbish. She's missed open goal after open goal. Cleverly would have slotted them all into the back of the net.
As a matter of interest, how long does it take for Labour to elect a new leader ? The council elections are going to be murder for Labour if Starmer is still in post.
The last Labour leadership election was 4 months long
But that was Covid times
I would expect 6 weeks minimum this time
It wasn’t anything to do with Covid, it was Corbyn resigned just before Christmas, so the Labour party effectively lost a month due to the holidays.
After the hysteria yesterday, Starmer could have taken the easier route and made his speech this morning without taking press questions. But he didn't - he faced the flak and, to my mind, did so pretty calmly.
As for Labour MPs - there's around 400 of them, and only a handful so far have put their head above the parapet and called for him to go. I'm ignoring anonymous briefings to Dan Hodges, Chris Mason and others. And, so far, no Cabinet Ministers have resigned or asked for him to go.
So I'm sticking with my view that Starmer will ride this current hysteria out, and will either be decapitated in 2027 or will lead Labour into the next GE. And, if he does go next year, I don't think it will be Ange: private and financial life too messy.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
NImrods routinely did it but those crews would have welcomed a crash to get away from the Honkers.
Guys in blue do lots of silly things that civvy aviation definitely don’t. Reversers in flight is a good one, or tactical approaches. Most airlines use derated takeoffs as well, because they have to pay for their own engine maintenance. Look up “balanced field” or “assumed temperature”.
I seem to recall a ?German pilot committing suicide and murder by crashing a plane-load of returning holidaymakers. Five or so years ago?
MH370 also a likely pilot suicide. It's not, unfortunately, uncommon.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
NImrods routinely did it but those crews would have welcomed a crash to get away from the Honkers.
Guys in blue do lots of silly things that civvy aviation definitely don’t. Reversers in flight is a good one, or tactical approaches. Most airlines use derated takeoffs as well, because they have to pay for their own engine maintenance. Look up “balanced field” or “assumed temperature”.
I seem to recall a ?German pilot committing suicide and murder by crashing a plane-load of returning holidaymakers. Five or so years ago?
Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
Quite. Its my hatred of socialism in general and Keir Starmer in particular that nakes his imminent disgrace and fall personally enjoyable
Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
The problem he has is that he should just say he made a decision knowing the previous ties and in hindsight it was a terrible decision.
He isn’t willing to do that so he is trying to contort himself into very awkward and untenable positions about what he was told and what he relied on rather than the basic point which is - it was a bad idea and I messed up in hindsight.
Yes, a more effectively cynical PM might have survived this,
For example. Can we remind ourselves, in the frenzy of recriminations and hindsight bandwagon jumping that Nigel Farage actively welcomed the Mandelson appointment. The only leader who expressed a contrary view was the LOTO. She is entitled to say ‘I told you so’ - much as I dislike her. https://x.com/oldishbird1/status/2019370817210204251
Comments
What actually happpened on Sunday at Heathrow airport is anyone’s guess, but the most likely is a pilot or the pilots’ union wanting to make it appear that there’s problems in general with these switches. There’s hundreds of 787s out there, and no problems with anyone except Air India.
Taking off with a suspected faulty fuel cutoff switch would be a genuine WTF for any pilot. They’d have called maintenance and had it replaced. Not just gone on a nine-hour flight and grounded the plane at the other end.
"Chagos exiles offer to name island after Trump"
The reason I would vote against Labour is that Rayner has broken the law and I don’t want people standing who have done that.
Badenoch has not done that.
He can't hide behind the idea that Mandelson is a liar.
The evidence was out there.
Starmer is supposedly an experienced lawyer. He is surely trained in assessing veracity.
He is toast
Nandy's pride in local towns launch
Both wiped off the Grid by Mandelson.
Reform laughing all the way to the boozer.
Were you told? If Starmer was told, he is done for.
It not, why not? The answer to this question could be almost as damaging as the first. Was the inquiry thwarted from the start? Starmer would be in big trouble if people had been lent on to not dig up too much dirt. Even if it was simply incompetence it could be very damaging. You can't bang on about putting national security first if we can't even vet someone like Mandelson properly.
Unless the evidence shows that a thorough inquiry was performed, and Starmer was given the all-clear to appoint Mandelson, I think he's got to go.
Lord help him if the remaining documents come out and show Mandelson in an even worse light.
https://youtu.be/hrziTee4b2c?t=74
I refuse to believe that the CO signed off on whatever the fuck that was.
The press are taking him apart
Just go
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
3m
Keir Starmer, staggeringly, says he had no reason to disbelieve Mandelson when he told him he barely knew Epstein. That is simply not credible.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2019375823598604712
That's just not credible and if his defence is that he was too naive then he shouldn't be in the job anyway.
It would be pretty remarkable if the Epstein scandal took down Keir Starmer while Trump's creepy old ass sits in the Oval Office telling women who ask about Epstein's victims to smile more.
https://x.com/TVietor08/status/2019181889450315786
But for some reason he and everyone else are still in thrall to the whole special relationship with Trump's creepy old ass..
*OK, that's a bit fanciful, as he has no instincts at all for political warfare.
What most of us didn't know was the leaking of financial information to the extent that Mandelson clearly had zero loyalty to the governments he served.
But Starmer can't make that argument as he never left poodle mode regarding Trump.
Indeed, he virtually invented the genre.
Odious lying fraud
He has no credible answers
His MPs will not be persuaded by these answers
Let alone the country
It's passport renewal time, which means I get to see this week's photograph next to the one from 2016.
Ouch.
We might bin a PM twice removed from Epstein. Meanwhile, Trump, who is actually in the files and had umpteen allegations against him...
Prisons minister / timpson? Seems to have worked.
But they knew, or should have known, at the time that it was a lie so Starmer completely damns himself with this line.
He didn't go back and investigate whether the answers given by Mandelson were true. He just accepted them.
That is a big, big failing
The council elections are going to be murder for Labour if Starmer is still in post.
He has made matters worse, much worse
You know its over when the Guardian tells him to his face some of his mps say this is his Pincher moment
He no longer sounds like he believes any of this himself now.
Sad but it is the end.
When the Medievals passed laws on chalk in flour etc, they appointed people to go and inspect.
Now we have 100,000 page regulation. And houses being built without insulation in the voids. Because no one is checking.
Whenever the Government regulates, it creates a delta between obeying and disobeying the law. It’s a debt - and unless it is honoured by enforcement, it will go unpaid.
"Every minute we spend not talking about [list of Labour's priorities] is a wasted minute."
Lammy or Cooper could be 'kissing hands' by 5pm tonight as temp. PM (assuming neither plans to run in the leadership contest)
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
But that was Covid times
I would expect 6 weeks minimum this time
Drowned at birth by Mandelson's mess.
He isn’t willing to do that so he is trying to contort himself into very awkward and untenable positions about what he was told and what he relied on rather than the basic point which is - it was a bad idea and I messed up in hindsight.
@DPJHodges
·
50s
That press conference has made things incalculably worse for Starmer. He could - just - try and defend the line he believed Mandelson when he said he cut off the relationship. But not that he “barely knew him”. I’d now be surprised if Starmer is still PM this time next week.
5 vote hold 4 to cut
IIRC, this was a part of the reason John Prescott (mentioned earlier) didn’t like him.
@Steven_Swinford
Starmer says of Mandelson and Epstein that it had been public for some time 'that they knew each other'
But what was in the public domain went beyond that - it's not just a case that they were acquaintances. There was clear evidence they were close friends
At the time of the appointment Starmer was aware of the internal JP Morgan report on Epstein which included this line:
“Jeffrey Epstein appears to maintain a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of the British government”
This wasn't some fly-by night report. It was from a very detailed, forensic audit conducted by one of the World's biggest banks that emerged in 2023. That report was referenced in the Cabinet Office's due diligence report
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2019376293913956788
I remember some Reform bellend thought it was the government funding gay pride events
As for Labour MPs - there's around 400 of them, and only a handful so far have put their head above the parapet and called for him to go. I'm ignoring anonymous briefings to Dan Hodges, Chris Mason and others. And, so far, no Cabinet Ministers have resigned or asked for him to go.
So I'm sticking with my view that Starmer will ride this current hysteria out, and will either be decapitated in 2027 or will lead Labour into the next GE. And, if he does go next year, I don't think it will be Ange: private and financial life too messy.
'They have a former leader in prison'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
Nearly 11 years ago now, March 2015.
With every day that passes the Chagos Surrender becomes murkier yet more grimly explicable
Its my hatred of socialism in general and Keir Starmer in particular that nakes his imminent disgrace and fall personally enjoyable
Another councillor has resigned from his role lesding "DOGE", regretting his comments to the newspaper acknowledging the challenges
https://bsky.app/profile/sundersays.bsky.social/post/3me3zgcqbvc2o
It just gets worse and worse for Starmer.
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday
A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform
A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade
Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
Her ideas are worse than Starmer's
She is less competent than Starmer
She is that bad.
Over 400 Labour MPs and they have no obvious leader candidates with integrity, intelligence and competence.
For example.
Can we remind ourselves, in the frenzy of recriminations and hindsight bandwagon jumping that Nigel Farage actively welcomed the Mandelson appointment. The only leader who expressed a contrary view was the LOTO. She is entitled to say ‘I told you so’ - much as I dislike her.
https://x.com/oldishbird1/status/2019370817210204251