Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin faced GB News complaint over colleague’s claim of ‘inappropriate comments’
Exclusive: Nigel Farage understood to have known of grievance against byelection candidate, whose lawyer described it as resolved ‘minor workplace matter’ of miscommunication
I'm sure it's all fine. ..Farage is understood to have decided the complaint was not serious enough to warrant a rethink about Goodwin’s selection. A source at GB News told the Guardian that Farage had characterised the complaint as “that is just Matt being Matt”...
I don't like the phrase "Matt being Matt", there is only one mononym Matt in politics and its not him
On the one hand this trial seems to have been very successful in improving cancer detection in screening.
On the other hand, it seems to have made not a huge amount of difference to clinical outcomes. Despite the positive spin put on the results by the manufacturer in the PR below, the highlighted bit is the most important result they were looking for.
The primary endpoint of statistically significant Stage III-IV reduction was not observed. However, there was a favorable trend toward fewer Stage III-IV cancers in a pre-specified group of 12 deadly cancers* in the intervention arm after the prevalent screening round. Adding Galleri to standard of care screening resulted in a substantial and clinically meaningful reduction in Stage IV diagnoses compared with standard of care alone across the pre-specified group of 12 deadly cancers. Stage IV diagnoses in these cancers decreased with each year of sequential screening, with a greater than 20% reduction in the second and third rounds. Similar reductions were observed across all cancers. Annual screening with the Galleri test plus standard of care screening resulted in a four-fold improvement in the overall cancer detection rate compared to standard of care screening alone in England for breast, colorectal, cervical and high risk lung cancer. Substantial increase in the absolute number of Stage I-II cancers in the 12 pre-specified deadly cancer types that are typically found in late stages were observed in the intervention arm. Screening with the Galleri test resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of cancers detected clinically through emergency presentation, which are associated with significantly higher mortality and healthcare costs. ..
If it wasn't statistically significant in a 2 year trial of 140 000 participants it doesn't appear a big effect.
Yes, exactly. What this seems to imply is that earlier detection doesn't help outcomes all that much ? Which rather goes against conventional wisdom.
Is it just that this group of cancers are particularly hard to treat ? Or that the more aggressive examples of them get to Stage III-IV really quickly ?
It doesn’t really go against conventional wisdom. We know some earlier detection is really important, but some earlier detection doesn’t change the course of the disease. It depends on the cancer. It depends on the treatment options. This is why we focus on clinical outcomes, not just detection rates, in studies like these.
As you suggest, if treatment options are poor, earlier detection doesn’t help much. But also if treatment options are very good, then it matters much less that you only detected the cancer later. Also, as you suggest, it matters whether individual tumours are slow or fast-growing.
Makerfield is just about the worst place I could think of for a Labour by election. Absolute nailed on Reform gain. Even Burnham wouldn't want it.
Yep. Reform 50% plus. The question is, is there any other party that could pose the 'stop reform' option? It doesnt seem Green or Galloway adjacent, not trad LD and the Con vote was chunky but has gone Ref. So Lab lose but their vote holds up a little bit by default?
It's where I grew up and where my family still live. All of those points are correct. It's also by most measures the longest continuously held Labour seat in the UK. The only possibility is a genuinely local soft Left Indy running against the government. But not one who bangs on about Palestine. Even then.
I think Rupert Lowe's setup will do significant damage to Reform, perhaps by peeling off quit a number of their grass roots leaders.
There's chatter this morning about the possibility of Jeremy Clarkson perhaps coming on board.
(Rupes says that Clarkson's sidekick Caleb dumps Clarkson's shit on the Lowe doorstep.)
Can't quite tell whether Gordon Brown is sending the police useful info based on his past experience in govt or is going full amateur private detective in his retirement.
Remember it is Gordon Brown whose government was being betrayed and undermined by Mandelson with his leaks to Epstein's circle. For Brown it is personal as well as political and criminal.
This would be the Gordon Brown who brought Mandelson back into government and allowed him to conduct government business on his personal email, would it? That Gordon Brown.
Yes he might well feel betrayed. But why was he so stupid as to bring him back into government, especially with his record? He demonstrated appalling judgment. And he ran a government which put government records, compliance with the FoI and market rules at risk. He should not be excused criticism for this.
Mandelson seems to be a classic case where despite repeatedly causing trouble he was always brought back as he was just too damn competent to leave out, and hired to advise as he was do smart, only to reveal he has to rely on a defence of being a naiive fool to avoid larger culpability, and wasn't even competent on thd government side.
I don't think Mandelson was particularly competent in his relatively brief times in government before he was forced to resign - certainly no strokes of genius spring to mind, and quite a few missteps, most obviously the Horizon system in the Post Office that we're still dealing with and the Millennium dome.
The reason he was repeatedly reappointed was almost certainly that he was very good at sucking up to the right people.
Or, in the case of Epstein, ultimately the wrong people.
So compulsive networking was both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.
He is bright, but the favoured positions he has held owe more to him being kind of Labour Royalty.
As for Horizon, so many have their fingerprints on that crime that it seems almost unfair to single him out. He was certainly involved in its early days, as were Blair and Harman, but then we all tended to have an overly optimistic view of computer cure-alls back then.
Can't quite tell whether Gordon Brown is sending the police useful info based on his past experience in govt or is going full amateur private detective in his retirement.
Remember it is Gordon Brown whose government was being betrayed and undermined by Mandelson with his leaks to Epstein's circle. For Brown it is personal as well as political and criminal.
This would be the Gordon Brown who brought Mandelson back into government and allowed him to conduct government business on his personal email, would it? That Gordon Brown.
Yes he might well feel betrayed. But why was he so stupid as to bring him back into government, especially with his record? He demonstrated appalling judgment. And he ran a government which put government records, compliance with the FoI and market rules at risk. He should not be excused criticism for this.
Mandelson seems to be a classic case where despite repeatedly causing trouble he was always brought back as he was just too damn competent to leave out, and hired to advise as he was do smart, only to reveal he has to rely on a defence of being a naiive fool to avoid larger culpability, and wasn't even competent on thd government side.
I don't think Mandelson was particularly competent in his relatively brief times in government before he was forced to resign - certainly no strokes of genius spring to mind, and quite a few missteps, most obviously the Horizon system in the Post Office that we're still dealing with and the Millennium dome.
The reason he was repeatedly reappointed was almost certainly that he was very good at sucking up to the right people.
Or, in the case of Epstein, ultimately the wrong people.
So compulsive networking was both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.
Back when he was a European Commissioner I met Mandelson. He certainly knew how to work a room, and had a good amount of charisma (whether that is a good thing or not). Those who worked with him only said positive things about him (if that tells you anything). So, I think it is a bit unfair to traduce his entire record. He, or at least the places he was notional head of, did do some good things. The peace process in Northern Ireland spring to mind. And creating New Labour was something he was involved in (like it or not it was electorally dominant). Arguably bringing Mandelson into the Brown government gave a drifting administration a bit of direction and made it a tougher fight for the Cameron-led Conservative Party. So clearly there is something there.
What always amazed me is his capacity to self-destruct - mostly over the desire for money or to be close to people with lots of money. And for people, rightly or wrongly, to accept those “known” risks for the upside. Either way it tells me that they must have thought there was an upside.
Personally my favourite of his resignations was the first one. Because, if the rumour is true, he took the loan of Robinson for his place in Notting Hill but didn’t invite him to the house warming. Because of that Robinson / or someone close to him leaked the loan to the press. chef’s kiss brilliant.
Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin faced GB News complaint over colleague’s claim of ‘inappropriate comments’
Exclusive: Nigel Farage understood to have known of grievance against byelection candidate, whose lawyer described it as resolved ‘minor workplace matter’ of miscommunication
Well knock me down with a feather.
I would not rule out a labour hold
Seems Andy Burnham is there most days
I would suggest that if labour do hold the irony Burnham did it for Starmer would be worth a chuckle
CNN's Kristen Holmes reports that Trump blew up during a meeting after learning of the SCOTUS ruling on tariffs.
"He started ranting about the decision, not only calling it a disgrace, but started attacking the courts and at one point saying these effing courts, but using the actual language there"
On the one hand this trial seems to have been very successful in improving cancer detection in screening.
On the other hand, it seems to have made not a huge amount of difference to clinical outcomes. Despite the positive spin put on the results by the manufacturer in the PR below, the highlighted bit is the most important result they were looking for.
The primary endpoint of statistically significant Stage III-IV reduction was not observed. However, there was a favorable trend toward fewer Stage III-IV cancers in a pre-specified group of 12 deadly cancers* in the intervention arm after the prevalent screening round. Adding Galleri to standard of care screening resulted in a substantial and clinically meaningful reduction in Stage IV diagnoses compared with standard of care alone across the pre-specified group of 12 deadly cancers. Stage IV diagnoses in these cancers decreased with each year of sequential screening, with a greater than 20% reduction in the second and third rounds. Similar reductions were observed across all cancers. Annual screening with the Galleri test plus standard of care screening resulted in a four-fold improvement in the overall cancer detection rate compared to standard of care screening alone in England for breast, colorectal, cervical and high risk lung cancer. Substantial increase in the absolute number of Stage I-II cancers in the 12 pre-specified deadly cancer types that are typically found in late stages were observed in the intervention arm. Screening with the Galleri test resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of cancers detected clinically through emergency presentation, which are associated with significantly higher mortality and healthcare costs. ..
If it wasn't statistically significant in a 2 year trial of 140 000 participants it doesn't appear a big effect.
Yes, exactly. What this seems to imply is that earlier detection doesn't help outcomes all that much ? Which rather goes against conventional wisdom.
Is it just that this group of cancers are particularly hard to treat ? Or that the more aggressive examples of them get to Stage III-IV really quickly ?
It doesn’t really go against conventional wisdom. We know some earlier detection is really important, but some earlier detection doesn’t change the course of the disease. It depends on the cancer. It depends on the treatment options. This is why we focus on clinical outcomes, not just detection rates, in studies like these.
The statement "the key to better outcomes is early detection" is pretty bedded into the debate about cancer. So you'd hope it's largely true.
Turning to important matters, how will Constitution Hill do on the flat at Southwell, 7.30pm?
Will never hurdle again.
A quite bizarre career story in a way.
Frankly I get sick of the Henderson circus at this time of year.
Oh yes - you know a bit about National Hunt racing? Guess that rules you out being another alter-Leon. 🏇🏻
Before the 11th I will post name of every single Festival winner.
Or perhaps the list of those to avoid...
Back to this evening and this has been a PR nightmare for the BHA and Arena Racing. As I said on another forum, if you put out honey, you'll get flies and sticking on a £40,000 race ostensibly for the benefit of one animal was always going to bring others along.
On lines of form, you can argue CONSTITUTION HILL will need to run to about a flat rating of 90 to win this. SQUIRE NECKER's win at Dundalk before Christmas reads very well in the context of this race. DADDY LONG LEGS was odds on when third in a Ballinrobe maiden to CARMERS who went on to run well at Ascot and finish second in the Voltigeur which is strong staying form.
I think the concept is hideously flawed and it smacks of favouring Henderson and Buckley over other owners and trainers and whenever Arena say they have no money for prizes, anyone can ask where they found £40k for this race. The winner is on for £21,600 tonight while the Class 2 2400m handicap at Lingfield (another Arena venue) tomorrow has a first prize of £15,700.
As to whether the horse "should" run over hurdles again, I've no strong view. I recall he guessed at hurdles even in his early days (was it his Champion when he guessed at the last?) and I don't think he's a natural. He might be a better chaser because he'd gain respect for the fences - that's been my view though I accept I'm in a minority. To be fair, plenty of very good hurdlers have done well on the flat so this could be the start of a new career for him - they put VAUBAN in the Melbourne Cup so why not CONSTITUTION HILL?
Can't quite tell whether Gordon Brown is sending the police useful info based on his past experience in govt or is going full amateur private detective in his retirement.
Remember it is Gordon Brown whose government was being betrayed and undermined by Mandelson with his leaks to Epstein's circle. For Brown it is personal as well as political and criminal.
This would be the Gordon Brown who brought Mandelson back into government and allowed him to conduct government business on his personal email, would it? That Gordon Brown.
Yes he might well feel betrayed. But why was he so stupid as to bring him back into government, especially with his record? He demonstrated appalling judgment. And he ran a government which put government records, compliance with the FoI and market rules at risk. He should not be excused criticism for this.
Mandelson seems to be a classic case where despite repeatedly causing trouble he was always brought back as he was just too damn competent to leave out, and hired to advise as he was do smart, only to reveal he has to rely on a defence of being a naiive fool to avoid larger culpability, and wasn't even competent on thd government side.
I don't think Mandelson was particularly competent in his relatively brief times in government before he was forced to resign - certainly no strokes of genius spring to mind, and quite a few missteps, most obviously the Horizon system in the Post Office that we're still dealing with and the Millennium dome.
The reason he was repeatedly reappointed was almost certainly that he was very good at sucking up to the right people.
Or, in the case of Epstein, ultimately the wrong people.
So compulsive networking was both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.
His streams of information must have given the impression that he was ahead of the game.
I wonder if he told Alistair Darling what kind of pushback from the banks to expect. After he secretly told a least one bank how to pushback.
Turning to important matters, how will Constitution Hill do on the flat at Southwell, 7.30pm?
Will never hurdle again.
A quite bizarre career story in a way.
Frankly I get sick of the Henderson circus at this time of year.
Oh yes - you know a bit about National Hunt racing? Guess that rules you out being another alter-Leon. 🏇🏻
Before the 11th I will post name of every single Festival winner.
Or perhaps the list of those to avoid...
Back to this evening and this has been a PR nightmare for the BHA and Arena Racing. As I said on another forum, if you put out honey, you'll get flies and sticking on a £40,000 race ostensibly for the benefit of one animal was always going to bring others along.
On lines of form, you can argue CONSTITUTION HILL will need to run to about a flat rating of 90 to win this. SQUIRE NECKER's win at Dundalk before Christmas reads very well in the context of this race. DADDY LONG LEGS was odds on when third in a Ballinrobe maiden to CARMERS who went on to run well at Ascot and finish second in the Voltigeur which is strong staying form.
I think the concept is hideously flawed and it smacks of favouring Henderson and Buckley over other owners and trainers and whenever Arena say they have no money for prizes, anyone can ask where they found £40k for this race. The winner is on for £21,600 tonight while the Class 2 2400m handicap at Lingfield (another Arena venue) tomorrow has a first prize of £15,700.
As to whether the horse "should" run over hurdles again, I've no strong view. I recall he guessed at hurdles even in his early days (was it his Champion when he guessed at the last?) and I don't think he's a natural. He might be a better chaser because he'd gain respect for the fences - that's been my view though I accept I'm in a minority. To be fair, plenty of very good hurdlers have done well on the flat so this could be the start of a new career for him - they put VAUBAN in the Melbourne Cup so why not CONSTITUTION HILL?
They had an interview with the trainer on Today this morning. Now I know nothing about horse racing but the trainer was explaining that they were running him flat not because it’s a new direction for the horse but because they really wanted to get some racing in him but were still wary of jumps at the moment and wanted him prepared as best they can for the big jump races.
Not sure if this makes sense or is a bluff by the trainer but seemed like a plan based on the long interview.
It's nice to see that Gorsuch (as he did early in his tenure on the Supreme Court and which had been sadly lacking lately) taking a sceptical view of executive overreach.
It's sad to see Kavanagh dissenting.
And Thomas and Alito are partisan hacks.
Word is Alito is stepping down.
Good luck on getting his replacement through the House before the mid-terms.
They managed to get Bader Ginsberg replaced in a much shorter time span.
I think the possible issue is overreach. Trump wants an uber-loyalist - someone like Emil Bove on the court.
The people he's put on so far, while showing a degree of loyalty, have not bowed to his every wish.
But can he get Bove through? Would Tills or McConnell or Murkowski vote for Trump's former personal lawyer?
I see FIFA has joined the "Board of Peace', further enhancing its credibility.
Even for Fifa it's so pathetic to watch. I didn't expect any shame, and dignity went long ago, but do none of them have limits?
How does Infantino fool himself when looking in the mirror that he is just a football administrator who loves peace? We all make ourselves a hero in our heads, but that's a tricky one.
Everyone, including him, knows he's an ingratiating little gobshite who just follows the buck. Fans are too obsessed with the football to care though, and in any case can do little about him.
...the vast majority of trans women (i.e. a man) who has kept his male genitalia. Most do, after all...
I had an argument with Cyclefree some years ago about whether that was true. Then the same week - possibly the same day - a trans woman performer on a TV show stripped off and waved their willy about. So I'm not overkeen on revisiting this statistic. But the following points remain true
We can't agree on the number of trans people
We can't agree on the definition of a trans person
We can work out the number of genital surgeries carried out by the NHS, but it's more difficult to work out the number of genital surgeries carried out by all surgeons in the UK, and it's damn nearly impossible to estimate the number of genital surgeries carried out worldwide on British residents.
(Plus there's the thorny problem of trans inward migration to/outward migration from the UK, but let's put that to one side for the moment)
So while I'm content to accept the argument that N trans women/biological male/MTF/whatevers have got a penis for a nontrivial value of N, more than that is a bit of a reach.
I think it true that only a minority of Trans-folk have had gender confirmation surgery, but at least part of this is access. Over recent years accessing drug treatments, living in the new gender role and access to surgery have all become much more difficult, then Trans-folk are stigmatised for not having surgery. Its a real Catch 22.
Of course there a % who never seek these things and simply cross dress.
It's worth remembering that surgery as a prerequisite for gender recognition was declared unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights some time ago. The court ruled that forcing people to have surgery which effectively castrates and sterilises them in order to get their gender recognised was, for obvious reasons, wrong.
That only emphasises the problem which is that the word trans encompasses everyone from those who have had full surgery to those with dysphoria but live with it, cross-dressers, some only part-time, men with sexual fetishes and men who are simply sexual predators taking advantage. And there is no way of distinguishing between any of them. None of them have any business being in women only spaces.
Why do you say there is no way of distinguishing between any of them? Or why is that any different to the inability to distinguish between criminals and non-criminals more generally?
Cyclefree makes a reasonable point, but there are workarounds. If you have a difficult sieve where the rules are arbitrary and not easily discernable, then you give it to a committee - the obvious example is a parole board. Combined with strong penalties for later recidivism, you have a viable way forward. If the pre-FWS system had been set up with a demandable certificate instead of one which is enforceably private, it could have been modified to fit that. But Parliament ignored it and the Supreme Court went down another path.
It may be instructive in future to track how other countries cope. Ireland allows for self-id but the rules are reviewed periodically, and thanks to the antics of the repellent Barbie Kardashian (NSFW to google) they are amending the rules to ban biological males in female prisons. What in the UK was the matter of fraught shouting and demonstrations is being resolved in Ireland in a less fraught manner.
Bearing in mind there are active proceedings, so I will word carefully:
Does anyone know if the US State Dep't are prepared to release unredacted information to the British police ?
If they aren't or won't all this is going nowhere since redacted emails are not permissible in a UK court of law.
The emails may have been redacted by the US, but by the nature of emails presumably the originals still exist as sent by AMW and others in other forms, and these may well be available unredacted to the British police.
There are complicated procedures whereby the U.K. authorities can obtain relevant material from the US. But this has to be done properly and in strict compliance with the rules if such material is to be admissible in a criminal trial. Get it wrong and you risk the trio being abandoned. Remember also that if someone is charged then they are entitled to see all unused material and any material which may be helpful to the defence. That is a massive task for prosecutors. Hence the final paragraph in my header.
Turning to important matters, how will Constitution Hill do on the flat at Southwell, 7.30pm?
Will never hurdle again.
A quite bizarre career story in a way.
Frankly I get sick of the Henderson circus at this time of year.
Oh yes - you know a bit about National Hunt racing? Guess that rules you out being another alter-Leon. 🏇🏻
Before the 11th I will post name of every single Festival winner.
Or perhaps the list of those to avoid...
Back to this evening and this has been a PR nightmare for the BHA and Arena Racing. As I said on another forum, if you put out honey, you'll get flies and sticking on a £40,000 race ostensibly for the benefit of one animal was always going to bring others along.
On lines of form, you can argue CONSTITUTION HILL will need to run to about a flat rating of 90 to win this. SQUIRE NECKER's win at Dundalk before Christmas reads very well in the context of this race. DADDY LONG LEGS was odds on when third in a Ballinrobe maiden to CARMERS who went on to run well at Ascot and finish second in the Voltigeur which is strong staying form.
I think the concept is hideously flawed and it smacks of favouring Henderson and Buckley over other owners and trainers and whenever Arena say they have no money for prizes, anyone can ask where they found £40k for this race. The winner is on for £21,600 tonight while the Class 2 2400m handicap at Lingfield (another Arena venue) tomorrow has a first prize of £15,700.
As to whether the horse "should" run over hurdles again, I've no strong view. I recall he guessed at hurdles even in his early days (was it his Champion when he guessed at the last?) and I don't think he's a natural. He might be a better chaser because he'd gain respect for the fences - that's been my view though I accept I'm in a minority. To be fair, plenty of very good hurdlers have done well on the flat so this could be the start of a new career for him - they put VAUBAN in the Melbourne Cup so why not CONSTITUTION HILL?
They had an interview with the trainer on Today this morning. Now I know nothing about horse racing but the trainer was explaining that they were running him flat not because it’s a new direction for the horse but because they really wanted to get some racing in him but were still wary of jumps at the moment and wanted him prepared as best they can for the big jump races.
Not sure if this makes sense or is a bluff by the trainer but seemed like a plan based on the long interview.
Turning to important matters, how will Constitution Hill do on the flat at Southwell, 7.30pm?
Will never hurdle again.
A quite bizarre career story in a way.
Frankly I get sick of the Henderson circus at this time of year.
Oh yes - you know a bit about National Hunt racing? Guess that rules you out being another alter-Leon. 🏇🏻
Before the 11th I will post name of every single Festival winner.
Or perhaps the list of those to avoid...
Back to this evening and this has been a PR nightmare for the BHA and Arena Racing. As I said on another forum, if you put out honey, you'll get flies and sticking on a £40,000 race ostensibly for the benefit of one animal was always going to bring others along.
On lines of form, you can argue CONSTITUTION HILL will need to run to about a flat rating of 90 to win this. SQUIRE NECKER's win at Dundalk before Christmas reads very well in the context of this race. DADDY LONG LEGS was odds on when third in a Ballinrobe maiden to CARMERS who went on to run well at Ascot and finish second in the Voltigeur which is strong staying form.
I think the concept is hideously flawed and it smacks of favouring Henderson and Buckley over other owners and trainers and whenever Arena say they have no money for prizes, anyone can ask where they found £40k for this race. The winner is on for £21,600 tonight while the Class 2 2400m handicap at Lingfield (another Arena venue) tomorrow has a first prize of £15,700.
As to whether the horse "should" run over hurdles again, I've no strong view. I recall he guessed at hurdles even in his early days (was it his Champion when he guessed at the last?) and I don't think he's a natural. He might be a better chaser because he'd gain respect for the fences - that's been my view though I accept I'm in a minority. To be fair, plenty of very good hurdlers have done well on the flat so this could be the start of a new career for him - they put VAUBAN in the Melbourne Cup so why not CONSTITUTION HILL?
They had an interview with the trainer on Today this morning. Now I know nothing about horse racing but the trainer was explaining that they were running him flat not because it’s a new direction for the horse but because they really wanted to get some racing in him but were still wary of jumps at the moment and wanted him prepared as best they can for the big jump races.
Not sure if this makes sense or is a bluff by the trainer but seemed like a plan based on the long interview.
Yes, I heard that too and it does make sense. So too does Stodge's view about prize-money.
Can't quite tell whether Gordon Brown is sending the police useful info based on his past experience in govt or is going full amateur private detective in his retirement.
Remember it is Gordon Brown whose government was being betrayed and undermined by Mandelson with his leaks to Epstein's circle. For Brown it is personal as well as political and criminal.
This would be the Gordon Brown who brought Mandelson back into government and allowed him to conduct government business on his personal email, would it? That Gordon Brown.
Yes he might well feel betrayed. But why was he so stupid as to bring him back into government, especially with his record? He demonstrated appalling judgment. And he ran a government which put government records, compliance with the FoI and market rules at risk. He should not be excused criticism for this.
Mandelson seems to be a classic case where despite repeatedly causing trouble he was always brought back as he was just too damn competent to leave out, and hired to advise as he was do smart, only to reveal he has to rely on a defence of being a naiive fool to avoid larger culpability, and wasn't even competent on thd government side.
I don't think Mandelson was particularly competent in his relatively brief times in government before he was forced to resign - certainly no strokes of genius spring to mind, and quite a few missteps, most obviously the Horizon system in the Post Office that we're still dealing with and the Millennium dome.
The reason he was repeatedly reappointed was almost certainly that he was very good at sucking up to the right people.
Or, in the case of Epstein, ultimately the wrong people.
So compulsive networking was both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.
He is bright, but the favoured positions he has held owe more to him being kind of Labour Royalty.
As for Horizon, so many have their fingerprints on that crime that it seems almost unfair to single him out. He was certainly involved in its early days, as were Blair and Harman, but then we all tended to have an overly optimistic view of computer cure-alls back then.
I think for far too many at the PO the Horizon system was working as intended because it was catching all those bastards that had been stealing from the till over the years. Add it 'computer cant be wrong' and here we are.
Turning to important matters, how will Constitution Hill do on the flat at Southwell, 7.30pm?
Will never hurdle again.
A quite bizarre career story in a way.
Frankly I get sick of the Henderson circus at this time of year.
Oh yes - you know a bit about National Hunt racing? Guess that rules you out being another alter-Leon. 🏇🏻
Before the 11th I will post name of every single Festival winner.
Or perhaps the list of those to avoid...
Back to this evening and this has been a PR nightmare for the BHA and Arena Racing. As I said on another forum, if you put out honey, you'll get flies and sticking on a £40,000 race ostensibly for the benefit of one animal was always going to bring others along.
On lines of form, you can argue CONSTITUTION HILL will need to run to about a flat rating of 90 to win this. SQUIRE NECKER's win at Dundalk before Christmas reads very well in the context of this race. DADDY LONG LEGS was odds on when third in a Ballinrobe maiden to CARMERS who went on to run well at Ascot and finish second in the Voltigeur which is strong staying form.
I think the concept is hideously flawed and it smacks of favouring Henderson and Buckley over other owners and trainers and whenever Arena say they have no money for prizes, anyone can ask where they found £40k for this race. The winner is on for £21,600 tonight while the Class 2 2400m handicap at Lingfield (another Arena venue) tomorrow has a first prize of £15,700.
As to whether the horse "should" run over hurdles again, I've no strong view. I recall he guessed at hurdles even in his early days (was it his Champion when he guessed at the last?) and I don't think he's a natural. He might be a better chaser because he'd gain respect for the fences - that's been my view though I accept I'm in a minority. To be fair, plenty of very good hurdlers have done well on the flat so this could be the start of a new career for him - they put VAUBAN in the Melbourne Cup so why not CONSTITUTION HILL?
I’ll bow to your expertise on Flat racing.
But I have lingering doubts CONSTITUTION HILL can hit the heights again, even without a fence in front. Maybe injury just took something away physically, perhaps even mentally it’s lost its love for racing. They are sentient. My friends horse (the one I fell off putting my life in danger) knew the difference between saying nice things to it and taking the piss out of it.
Can't quite tell whether Gordon Brown is sending the police useful info based on his past experience in govt or is going full amateur private detective in his retirement.
Remember it is Gordon Brown whose government was being betrayed and undermined by Mandelson with his leaks to Epstein's circle. For Brown it is personal as well as political and criminal.
This would be the Gordon Brown who brought Mandelson back into government and allowed him to conduct government business on his personal email, would it? That Gordon Brown.
Yes he might well feel betrayed. But why was he so stupid as to bring him back into government, especially with his record? He demonstrated appalling judgment. And he ran a government which put government records, compliance with the FoI and market rules at risk. He should not be excused criticism for this.
Mandelson seems to be a classic case where despite repeatedly causing trouble he was always brought back as he was just too damn competent to leave out, and hired to advise as he was do smart, only to reveal he has to rely on a defence of being a naiive fool to avoid larger culpability, and wasn't even competent on thd government side.
I don't think Mandelson was particularly competent in his relatively brief times in government before he was forced to resign - certainly no strokes of genius spring to mind, and quite a few missteps, most obviously the Horizon system in the Post Office that we're still dealing with and the Millennium dome.
The reason he was repeatedly reappointed was almost certainly that he was very good at sucking up to the right people.
Or, in the case of Epstein, ultimately the wrong people.
So compulsive networking was both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.
Back when he was a European Commissioner I met Mandelson. He certainly knew how to work a room, and had a good amount of charisma (whether that is a good thing or not). Those who worked with him only said positive things about him (if that tells you anything). So, I think it is a bit unfair to traduce his entire record. He, or at least the places he was notional head of, did do some good things. The peace process in Northern Ireland spring to mind. And creating New Labour was something he was involved in (like it or not it was electorally dominant). Arguably bringing Mandelson into the Brown government gave a drifting administration a bit of direction and made it a tougher fight for the Cameron-led Conservative Party. So clearly there is something there.
What always amazed me is his capacity to self-destruct - mostly over the desire for money or to be close to people with lots of money. And for people, rightly or wrongly, to accept those “known” risks for the upside. Either way it tells me that they must have thought there was an upside.
Personally my favourite of his resignations was the first one. Because, if the rumour is true, he took the loan of Robinson for his place in Notting Hill but didn’t invite him to the house warming. Because of that Robinson / or someone close to him leaked the loan to the press. chef’s kiss brilliant.
"mostly over the desire for money or to be close to people with lots of money. " Its clearly his Kryptonite. For some its sex, for others gambling, drinking or whatever. In his case he just always wants a better lifestyle than he can afford so he has to try to find a way to get it.
Can't quite tell whether Gordon Brown is sending the police useful info based on his past experience in govt or is going full amateur private detective in his retirement.
Remember it is Gordon Brown whose government was being betrayed and undermined by Mandelson with his leaks to Epstein's circle. For Brown it is personal as well as political and criminal.
This would be the Gordon Brown who brought Mandelson back into government and allowed him to conduct government business on his personal email, would it? That Gordon Brown.
Yes he might well feel betrayed. But why was he so stupid as to bring him back into government, especially with his record? He demonstrated appalling judgment. And he ran a government which put government records, compliance with the FoI and market rules at risk. He should not be excused criticism for this.
Mandelson seems to be a classic case where despite repeatedly causing trouble he was always brought back as he was just too damn competent to leave out, and hired to advise as he was do smart, only to reveal he has to rely on a defence of being a naiive fool to avoid larger culpability, and wasn't even competent on thd government side.
I don't think Mandelson was particularly competent in his relatively brief times in government before he was forced to resign - certainly no strokes of genius spring to mind, and quite a few missteps, most obviously the Horizon system in the Post Office that we're still dealing with and the Millennium dome.
The reason he was repeatedly reappointed was almost certainly that he was very good at sucking up to the right people.
Or, in the case of Epstein, ultimately the wrong people.
So compulsive networking was both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.
He is bright, but the favoured positions he has held owe more to him being kind of Labour Royalty.
As for Horizon, so many have their fingerprints on that crime that it seems almost unfair to single him out. He was certainly involved in its early days, as were Blair and Harman, but then we all tended to have an overly optimistic view of computer cure-alls back then.
I think for far too many at the PO the Horizon system was working as intended because it was catching all those bastards that had been stealing from the till over the years. Add it 'computer cant be wrong' and here we are.
That was no doubt a factor, Turbo, and I strongly suspect that back in pre-Horizon days a lot of pilfering went on. The Post Offices were pre-eminenty cash businesses and may well have been a soft touch for dishonest owners. The PO management clearly believed this, and when Horizon was introduced their reaction would have been a perfectly understandable 'gotcha'.
That however was only one factor in a perfect storm of misapprehensions and misdeeds contributing to this appalling scandal.
Omnisis normally do online polling but it would be more difficult to do that in this instance . If it was a phone poll then the Reform figure is likely to be an underestimate.
It could well underestimate the Green vote too, as youngsters are notoriously hard to get a representative poll from.
Labour need to stop chasing Reform voters.
Many of those will not be coming back to Labour or are new voters . If Reform win it will be down to a progressive split and should act as a wake up call .
If this poll is accurate, the difference between first and third place will be about 1,800 votes.
Now McSweeney gone Labour will focus a lot more on Polanski
Labour are actually a lot Greener than Polanski.
If they attack on that basis, the critical difference between core Green policy and corbyn heavy Polanski the cult figure, they can make significant inroads in time.
But Polanski is more socialist than Labour.
A bit of raw communism would be a welcome change from almost 80 years of capitalist/ mixed economy failure.
If Labour play their cards right particularly with regard to Gaza and Trump in most places where the election is close enough most Greens will vote Labour. Most people I know are saying they'll vote Green including me but faced with a possible fascist or quasi-fascist like Kemi I'm sure we'd all weaken
As we speak Lammy is in Washington to explain/capitulate on why we don't fancy carpet bombing Tehran.
On the one hand this trial seems to have been very successful in improving cancer detection in screening.
On the other hand, it seems to have made not a huge amount of difference to clinical outcomes. Despite the positive spin put on the results by the manufacturer in the PR below, the highlighted bit is the most important result they were looking for.
The primary endpoint of statistically significant Stage III-IV reduction was not observed. However, there was a favorable trend toward fewer Stage III-IV cancers in a pre-specified group of 12 deadly cancers* in the intervention arm after the prevalent screening round. Adding Galleri to standard of care screening resulted in a substantial and clinically meaningful reduction in Stage IV diagnoses compared with standard of care alone across the pre-specified group of 12 deadly cancers. Stage IV diagnoses in these cancers decreased with each year of sequential screening, with a greater than 20% reduction in the second and third rounds. Similar reductions were observed across all cancers. Annual screening with the Galleri test plus standard of care screening resulted in a four-fold improvement in the overall cancer detection rate compared to standard of care screening alone in England for breast, colorectal, cervical and high risk lung cancer. Substantial increase in the absolute number of Stage I-II cancers in the 12 pre-specified deadly cancer types that are typically found in late stages were observed in the intervention arm. Screening with the Galleri test resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of cancers detected clinically through emergency presentation, which are associated with significantly higher mortality and healthcare costs. ..
If it wasn't statistically significant in a 2 year trial of 140 000 participants it doesn't appear a big effect.
Yes, exactly. What this seems to imply is that earlier detection doesn't help outcomes all that much ? Which rather goes against conventional wisdom.
Is it just that this group of cancers are particularly hard to treat ? Or that the more aggressive examples of them get to Stage III-IV really quickly ?
It doesn’t really go against conventional wisdom. We know some earlier detection is really important, but some earlier detection doesn’t change the course of the disease. It depends on the cancer. It depends on the treatment options. This is why we focus on clinical outcomes, not just detection rates, in studies like these.
The statement "the key to better outcomes is early detection" is pretty bedded into the debate about cancer. So you'd hope it's largely true.
In terms of what us, as laypeople and potential cancer sufferers can do about it, early detection is one of the few things we can do - take part in screening, go to the doctor if you have relevant concerns, etc. So you'd expect that to be a major part of the public information about cancer.
Comments
As you suggest, if treatment options are poor, earlier detection doesn’t help much. But also if treatment options are very good, then it matters much less that you only detected the cancer later. Also, as you suggest, it matters whether individual tumours are slow or fast-growing.
As for Horizon, so many have their fingerprints on that crime that it seems almost unfair to single him out. He was certainly involved in its early days, as were Blair and Harman, but then we all tended to have an overly optimistic view of computer cure-alls back then.
I think it was Wee Willy who posted it last night, who likely spotted it on a trawl round favourite echo chambers.
Although it’s been around for nearly 70 years, does private eye count as alt-media or mainstream?
What always amazed me is his capacity to self-destruct - mostly over the desire for money or to be close to people with lots of money. And for people, rightly or wrongly, to accept those “known” risks for the upside. Either way it tells me that they must have thought there was an upside.
Personally my favourite of his resignations was the first one. Because, if the rumour is true, he took the loan of Robinson for his place in Notting Hill but didn’t invite him to the house warming. Because of that Robinson / or someone close to him leaked the loan to the press. chef’s kiss brilliant.
If Labour wins, that’s a big plus for him among the members, in the future.
CNN's Kristen Holmes reports that Trump blew up during a meeting after learning of the SCOTUS ruling on tariffs.
"He started ranting about the decision, not only calling it a disgrace, but started attacking the courts and at one point saying these effing courts, but using the actual language there"
https://bsky.app/profile/justinbaragona.bsky.social/post/3mfcjrjdtis2r
https://x.com/i/status/2024869911198085264
Back to this evening and this has been a PR nightmare for the BHA and Arena Racing. As I said on another forum, if you put out honey, you'll get flies and sticking on a £40,000 race ostensibly for the benefit of one animal was always going to bring others along.
On lines of form, you can argue CONSTITUTION HILL will need to run to about a flat rating of 90 to win this. SQUIRE NECKER's win at Dundalk before Christmas reads very well in the context of this race. DADDY LONG LEGS was odds on when third in a Ballinrobe maiden to CARMERS who went on to run well at Ascot and finish second in the Voltigeur which is strong staying form.
I think the concept is hideously flawed and it smacks of favouring Henderson and Buckley over other owners and trainers and whenever Arena say they have no money for prizes, anyone can ask where they found £40k for this race. The winner is on for £21,600 tonight while the Class 2 2400m handicap at Lingfield (another Arena venue) tomorrow has a first prize of £15,700.
As to whether the horse "should" run over hurdles again, I've no strong view. I recall he guessed at hurdles even in his early days (was it his Champion when he guessed at the last?) and I don't think he's a natural. He might be a better chaser because he'd gain respect for the fences - that's been my view though I accept I'm in a minority. To be fair, plenty of very good hurdlers have done well on the flat so this could be the start of a new career for him - they put VAUBAN in the Melbourne Cup so why not CONSTITUTION HILL?
I wonder if he told Alistair Darling what kind of pushback from the banks to expect. After he secretly told a least one bank how to pushback.
That’s how you get a reputation as a prophet.
Not sure if this makes sense or is a bluff by the trainer but seemed like a plan based on the long interview.
Are you sure?
The tits don’t look big enough.
https://x.com/lucympowell/status/2024846450014757225?s=61
But I have lingering doubts CONSTITUTION HILL can hit the heights again, even without a fence in front. Maybe injury just took something away physically, perhaps even mentally it’s lost its love for racing. They are sentient. My friends horse (the one I fell off putting my life in danger) knew the difference between saying nice things to it and taking the piss out of it.
Its clearly his Kryptonite. For some its sex, for others gambling, drinking or whatever. In his case he just always wants a better lifestyle than he can afford so he has to try to find a way to get it.
NEW THREAD
Seen at the National Palace Museum in Taipei, today. The place whereto the Nationalists smuggled much of China’s great treasure in 1949
It’s a pretty, typically Chinese piece of jade ornament. Why is it special? No old fangled googlynge
Special because it made in ancient times? By the Xiongnu?
Or special because it’s from Europe?
That however was only one factor in a perfect storm of misapprehensions and misdeeds contributing to this appalling scandal.
Edit: oh, there's a new thread, maybe it's on there.