Skip to content

This should ease the pressure on Starmer – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,174
edited April 17 in General
This should ease the pressure on Starmer – politicalbetting.com

I think this Guardian story should take the pressure off Sir Keir Starmer, so far there is no smoking gun, although I can see a few more civil service resignations.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,599
    Thankfully I can have a nice relaxing weekend and not having to worry about Sir Keir Starmer being ousted.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,599
    Oooh, that was a first.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,828
    edited April 17
    That does smell like a massive pair of hairy bollocks.

    Hats off to Starmer for the lawyerly stuff. An awful lot of pin head dancing going on.

    P.S. Is that a technical first as TSE claimed gold and silver spots.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,388
    Now Romeo is involved it is time to shake down the Shakespeare pun tree for header title this weekend surely?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,924
    Looks like Starmer is safe, though he will probably have to throw Romeo and Little under the bus too for not telling him about the vetting failure of Mandelson
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    edited April 17
    Somebody is expertly leaking to the Guaridan. Who and why now.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 17,376
    The buck stops well before Keir as ever
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,726
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Useful information if the fuel runs out

    My former student Jacob Hall has a piece out in the European Review of Economic History where he measures travel speeds in Medieval Europe using "itinerant kings" who moved around with their courts.

    The TLDR is that they travelled at roughly 15 miles per day -- insanely slow. There was huge variance but globally pretty slow.

    https://nitter.poast.org/VincentGeloso/status/2045183073256398905#m

    15 miles a day in the medieval period is by no means insanely slowly. The roads were poor to non existent, most of the King's caravan would be travelling on foot and there would be no need to rush.

    The Roman army travelled aproximately 20 miles a day along well made roads and they were fit and trained to do it.

    To be honest 15 miles a day for the King's caravan is positively speedy.
    I assume they meant insanely slow to us. I'm frankly surprised it was so far given all the stuff they'd probably bring with them.
    It certainly puts the speed of Harold’s march from York to Hastings into a better perspective.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,325
    Looks like Starmer will have to fire Romeo who he’s only just taken on and Little .

    It’s quite astonishing that neither thought it was a good idea to tell the PM .

  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 7,937
    Does anyone genuinely believe that Starmer really knew nothing until Tuesday?

    Do we have a dunce’s cap, just in case?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    #10 comms director was also made aware by the Indy
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,886

    Somebody is expertly leaking to the Guaridan. Who and why now.

    It could be orchestrated by Mandy to get Wes Streeting into Downing Street.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 61,139
    nico67 said:

    Looks like Starmer will have to fire Romeo who he’s only just taken on and Little .

    It’s quite astonishing that neither thought it was a good idea to tell the PM .

    Isn’t it reasonable to asume that they did?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,515

    rcs1000 said:

    Dom has weighed in. Long tweet on the Mandelson DV decision.

    Including:


    "Also hacks shd be asking:

    Who officially authorised Mandelson for STRAP clearance?
    You don't get to read very sensitive material, like transcripts of intercepted calls between important people, just because you've got DV - you *also* need STRAP.

    Either a) an official cleared Mandy for STRAP or else b) the requirement / 3+ month delay was waived by the PM, or c) we're supposed to believe Mandy wasn't shown STRAP material?
    So which official authorised it or did the PM waive it? When?"

    https://x.com/Dominic2306/status/2045188506541003081

    Personally, I want to know how Dominic Cummings passed security clearance.
    He's not wrong though.
    I agree.

    The putrid smell around this affair is very hard to ignore.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    I thoight the line was failing the security check was mega top secret and so Olly Robbins was basically the only person who knew?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 17,376
    'The civil service doesnt work' isnt a sustainable position for either the govt or the civil service
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,515

    Does anyone genuinely believe that Starmer really knew nothing until Tuesday?

    Do we have a dunce’s cap, just in case?

    I think it's entire possible; but only because Starmer himself had made it clear that he expected Mandelson to be confirmed/approved.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,325
    edited April 17
    RobD said:

    nico67 said:

    Looks like Starmer will have to fire Romeo who he’s only just taken on and Little .

    It’s quite astonishing that neither thought it was a good idea to tell the PM .

    Isn’t it reasonable to asume that they did?
    Not sure what’s reasonable anymore . It’s turning into the Da Vinci Code .

    And we all thought Starmers premiership would be dull !
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960

    #10 comms director was also made aware by the Indy

    By Monday it will be, “I’m absolutely furious that the cleaner didn’t let me know as soon as she heard so I’ve taken responsibility and fired her.”
    It is getting Boris.levels of incurious.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,388

    I thoight the line was failing the security check was mega top secret and so Olly Robbins was basically the only person who knew?

    That was the line that was tried this afternoon.

    Now we are onto this evening's line.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 43,524
    @shipwreck75.bsky.social‬

    If U.S. naval blockade persists, Tehran will consider it a violation of the ceasefire and will close the Strait of Hormuz, an Iranian official tells Fars News.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,838
    UK Natural Gas below 100. Wooooohoooo.

    https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/uk-natural-gas
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 17,376
    HYUFD said:

    Looks like Starmer is safe, though he will probably have to throw Romeo and Little under the bus too for not telling him about the vetting failure of Mandelson

    Sacking Romeo 2 months after McSweeney went and having sacked Gray a year or so before is surely terminal? You cant have a PM with a conveyer belt of CoS all being dismissed
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,388

    Somebody is expertly leaking to the Guaridan. Who and why now.

    It could be orchestrated by Mandy to get Wes Streeting into Downing Street.
    Before Burnham gets into the House of Lords and is made PM by acclamation?

    Or something like that.

    Seems like a Mandy type 5d chess move so I could buy it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,502

    HYUFD said:

    Looks like Starmer is safe, though he will probably have to throw Romeo and Little under the bus too for not telling him about the vetting failure of Mandelson

    Sacking Romeo 2 months after McSweeney went and having sacked Gray a year or so before is surely terminal? You cant have a PM with a conveyer belt of CoS all being dismissed
    Particularly since he appointed Romeo in the face of many warnings about her conduct and suitability (including if memory serves from this FO bid who has just got the push).
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,866
    Bye bye Juliet Bravo.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,388
    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,554
    Foss said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Useful information if the fuel runs out

    My former student Jacob Hall has a piece out in the European Review of Economic History where he measures travel speeds in Medieval Europe using "itinerant kings" who moved around with their courts.

    The TLDR is that they travelled at roughly 15 miles per day -- insanely slow. There was huge variance but globally pretty slow.

    https://nitter.poast.org/VincentGeloso/status/2045183073256398905#m

    15 miles a day in the medieval period is by no means insanely slowly. The roads were poor to non existent, most of the King's caravan would be travelling on foot and there would be no need to rush.

    The Roman army travelled aproximately 20 miles a day along well made roads and they were fit and trained to do it.

    To be honest 15 miles a day for the King's caravan is positively speedy.
    I assume they meant insanely slow to us. I'm frankly surprised it was so far given all the stuff they'd probably bring with them.
    It certainly puts the speed of Harold’s march from York to Hastings into a better perspective.
    15 miles a day was standard since the Romans (and probably before them)

    The Roman legions were a bit faster because of the roads, training and a designed baggage train.

    Anything faster than this was a crazy effort. For Harold, isn’t there a recent suggestion that he used ships?

    Canals were about the same. But a horse could move 50x more and canal boats were vastly more reliable. So bigger loads that moved like clockwork.

    It was steam trains that changed this. Even the earliest trains ran at speeds that were *double* what humans had achieved previously. No wonder people thought wind blast might kill.
  • scampi25scampi25 Posts: 581

    #10 comms director was also made aware by the Indy

    By Monday it will be, “I’m absolutely furious that the cleaner didn’t let me know as soon as she heard so I’ve taken responsibility and fired her.”
    What? She cleans his desk so quick he never sees anything!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,554

    I thoight the line was failing the security check was mega top secret and so Olly Robbins was basically the only person who knew?

    Top Secret Ultra Mega And Printed In The Independent?
  • scampi25scampi25 Posts: 581


    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    9m
    This morning Starmer was on television saying "No one in Downing Street knew Mandelson failed his vetting". It's now becoming clear literally everyone in Downing Street knew except Keir Starmer himself.

    https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2045206566933029321


    ===

    If Larry tweets to say he knew then it is all over surely?

    MiiiaaaooouuuIKneeeewww!
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,325

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    Burnham grates on me and he isn’t even an MP yet. I’d rather Rayner took over .

  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,447
    nico67 said:

    Looks like Starmer will have to fire Romeo who he’s only just taken on and Little .

    It’s quite astonishing that neither thought it was a good idea to tell the PM .

    Shall we tell the President? No.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,877

    Somebody is expertly leaking to the Guaridan. Who and why now.

    It could be orchestrated by Mandy to get Wes Streeting into Downing Street.
    It could have been someone else, I suppose...

    Here's a theory, that starts with an observation by Marie le Conte.

    Observation: in the good old days, being an MP was the limit of many MP's ambition. A safe Tory seat was a sinecure for Lied Bufton of Tufton's less favoured son. Or on the red side, a retirement gig for the general secretary of the Amalgamated Union of Bottle Washers and Piano Tuners. Most MPs had no intention of being a minister, let alone PM, so the ones with ambition and talent could sort of rise effortlessly over decades.

    It's different now, because all the buggers have big career plans, because otherwise you don't get a sniff of a viable seat.

    Theory: The only way you can stand out and get to the top is by being an utterly awful human being. Sharp elbows. Ability to backstab. Being quietly competent loses out to loud and ruthless, in politics as everywhere else. Hence West Streeting and Robert Jenrick, to give examples from across the divide. If you are a May, Sunak or Starmer, the system will chew you up and spit you out.

    Or be a populist gobshite, like Farage and Polanski. Or Boris and Jez.

    Maybe it's time to end the disastrous democratic experiment.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,694
    Foss said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Useful information if the fuel runs out

    My former student Jacob Hall has a piece out in the European Review of Economic History where he measures travel speeds in Medieval Europe using "itinerant kings" who moved around with their courts.

    The TLDR is that they travelled at roughly 15 miles per day -- insanely slow. There was huge variance but globally pretty slow.

    https://nitter.poast.org/VincentGeloso/status/2045183073256398905#m

    15 miles a day in the medieval period is by no means insanely slowly. The roads were poor to non existent, most of the King's caravan would be travelling on foot and there would be no need to rush.

    The Roman army travelled aproximately 20 miles a day along well made roads and they were fit and trained to do it.

    To be honest 15 miles a day for the King's caravan is positively speedy.
    I assume they meant insanely slow to us. I'm frankly surprised it was so far given all the stuff they'd probably bring with them.
    It certainly puts the speed of Harold’s march from York to Hastings into a better perspective.
    Or perhaps not.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3gdxgw44eo
  • Leon_VotedForStarmerLeon_VotedForStarmer Posts: 69,000
    edited April 17
    Also, the logic here is apparently privacy issues, but it is bollocks. You cannot speak about vetting outcomes because the reasons for vetting failure must remain private, to encourage people to be truthful during the process. That makes sense but it is also irrelevant. You don’t have to reveal anything about WHAT caused a vetting failure. You just say to the prime minister, “so and so has failed vetting, the reasons remain confidential”

    There. The PM is informed and no-one’s privacy is compromised

    What a pile of wank. At some point Skyr is gonna run out of people to hurl under the bus, because there won’t be any more room under the bus. They will have to get more buses

    I foresee a bright morning, in about two years, when every single person in the government and civil service and every MP has been forced to resign to preserve the prime minister’s career, and it is literally just him in Number 10. Sitting alone. Whistling. Staring vaguely out of the window wearing his fucking stupid freebie designer spectacles
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,366

    Foss said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Useful information if the fuel runs out

    My former student Jacob Hall has a piece out in the European Review of Economic History where he measures travel speeds in Medieval Europe using "itinerant kings" who moved around with their courts.

    The TLDR is that they travelled at roughly 15 miles per day -- insanely slow. There was huge variance but globally pretty slow.

    https://nitter.poast.org/VincentGeloso/status/2045183073256398905#m

    15 miles a day in the medieval period is by no means insanely slowly. The roads were poor to non existent, most of the King's caravan would be travelling on foot and there would be no need to rush.

    The Roman army travelled aproximately 20 miles a day along well made roads and they were fit and trained to do it.

    To be honest 15 miles a day for the King's caravan is positively speedy.
    I assume they meant insanely slow to us. I'm frankly surprised it was so far given all the stuff they'd probably bring with them.
    It certainly puts the speed of Harold’s march from York to Hastings into a better perspective.
    15 miles a day was standard since the Romans (and probably before them)

    The Roman legions were a bit faster because of the roads, training and a designed baggage train.

    Anything faster than this was a crazy effort. For Harold, isn’t there a recent suggestion that he used ships?

    Canals were about the same. But a horse could move 50x more and canal boats were vastly more reliable. So bigger loads that moved like clockwork.

    It was steam trains that changed this. Even the earliest trains ran at speeds that were *double* what humans had achieved previously. No wonder people thought wind blast might kill.
    Until trains, the fastest people could move was in horseracing.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,828
    nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    Burnham grates on me and he isn’t even an MP yet. I’d rather Rayner took over .

    Burnham is a legend (in his own mind).
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,877

    I thoight the line was failing the security check was mega top secret and so Olly Robbins was basically the only person who knew?

    Top Secret Ultra Mega And Printed In The Independent?
    Pretty much the same thing.
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,726
    Nigelb said:

    Foss said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Useful information if the fuel runs out

    My former student Jacob Hall has a piece out in the European Review of Economic History where he measures travel speeds in Medieval Europe using "itinerant kings" who moved around with their courts.

    The TLDR is that they travelled at roughly 15 miles per day -- insanely slow. There was huge variance but globally pretty slow.

    https://nitter.poast.org/VincentGeloso/status/2045183073256398905#m

    15 miles a day in the medieval period is by no means insanely slowly. The roads were poor to non existent, most of the King's caravan would be travelling on foot and there would be no need to rush.

    The Roman army travelled aproximately 20 miles a day along well made roads and they were fit and trained to do it.

    To be honest 15 miles a day for the King's caravan is positively speedy.
    I assume they meant insanely slow to us. I'm frankly surprised it was so far given all the stuff they'd probably bring with them.
    It certainly puts the speed of Harold’s march from York to Hastings into a better perspective.
    Or perhaps not.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3gdxgw44eo
    It's amazing what you miss when distracted by other things.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,388
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Well, now.

    This time last year I was in hospital. During my stay the Supreme Court judgment on the proper interpretation of the Equality Act came out - on 16 April 2025. A year later the government has yet to issue the guidance to help service providers. It has said it will do so in May which means that it may not come into force until September, a year and a half after the judgment of the UK's top court. This delay puts service providers at legal risk, though of course they should be taking legal advice on the law, and it has given those who don't want to comply an excuse for not doing so. Even the UN has stated that British women and girls have been "left exposed" by the government's failure.

    This behaviour shows utter contempt for Britain's women, the Supreme Court and the rule of law itself. Remarkably, it is happening under a government led by a piously self-regarding human rights lawyer with an Attorney-General insistent on compliance with every dot and comma of international law but blithely unconcerned with the government's failure to comply with domestic law. Taking its cue from this, the civil service has refused to withdraw its current unlawful internal policies, presumably on the basis that if the government can't be arsed with paying attention to the law, why should they be.

    Still Streeting came out with a renewed Women's Health Strategy on Tuesday - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/womens-voices-to-be-at-the-heart-of-renewed-health-strategy - because of the terrible effects of misogyny in the NHS.

    Which is lovely.

    So I may write to him and point out that -
    1. Invasive lobular breast cancer, which I have, is the 2nd most common type of breast cancer.
    2. The current screening programme is ineffective at detecting it - either with mammograms, ultrasound or physical examination.
    3. Women are not told this when they go for screening. They are given false reassurance, as I was, for many years. So that barely a year after a screening which told me there was no problem, I was told that not only had I had it for some time but it had progressed to Stage 4 and was now in my spine, ribs and pelvis. It is incurable. This false reassurance - and dismal outcome - is probably happening to other women right now, some of whom will be your wives, daughters, sisters, mothers etc.,.
    4. Is this an example of the medical misogyny he is talking about and, if so, what is he proposing to do about this?

    I am very happy to raise my voice on this but given that I first raised this issue with my health trust last November and got a reply at the end of March, how serious is he. Because frankly whatever Ministers from the PM down say about women & girls strikes me as so much hot air with little action behind it.
    I'm extremely sorry for your health situation and the prognosis and I know all of PB is rooting for you and hopes the headers keep coming despite things.

    But on the screening thing I suspect an issue is that the powers-that-be (NICE etc) feel that if they let it be known that the screening doesn't cover all bases then they fear there will be a drop off in women coming forward to be screened.

    Just a thought. Feel free to shoot me down.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,599

    nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    Burnham grates on me and he isn’t even an MP yet. I’d rather Rayner took over .

    Burnham is a legend (in his own mind).
    He doesn't have the sort of modest self effacing behaviour that you associate with alumni of the University of Cambridge.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,447

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    But did he know about the DV failure?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,924
    nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    Burnham grates on me and he isn’t even an MP yet. I’d rather Rayner took over .

    Farage would beat Rayner, Burnham probably not
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 7,937

    Foss said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Useful information if the fuel runs out

    My former student Jacob Hall has a piece out in the European Review of Economic History where he measures travel speeds in Medieval Europe using "itinerant kings" who moved around with their courts.

    The TLDR is that they travelled at roughly 15 miles per day -- insanely slow. There was huge variance but globally pretty slow.

    https://nitter.poast.org/VincentGeloso/status/2045183073256398905#m

    15 miles a day in the medieval period is by no means insanely slowly. The roads were poor to non existent, most of the King's caravan would be travelling on foot and there would be no need to rush.

    The Roman army travelled aproximately 20 miles a day along well made roads and they were fit and trained to do it.

    To be honest 15 miles a day for the King's caravan is positively speedy.
    I assume they meant insanely slow to us. I'm frankly surprised it was so far given all the stuff they'd probably bring with them.
    It certainly puts the speed of Harold’s march from York to Hastings into a better perspective.
    15 miles a day was standard since the Romans (and probably before them)

    The Roman legions were a bit faster because of the roads, training and a designed baggage train.

    Anything faster than this was a crazy effort. For Harold, isn’t there a recent suggestion that he used ships?

    Canals were about the same. But a horse could move 50x more and canal boats were vastly more reliable. So bigger loads that moved like clockwork.

    It was steam trains that changed this. Even the earliest trains ran at speeds that were *double* what humans had achieved previously. No wonder people thought wind blast might kill.
    Until trains, the fastest people could move was in horseracing.
    Did throwing people off buildings only start after the trains?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,924

    HYUFD said:

    Looks like Starmer is safe, though he will probably have to throw Romeo and Little under the bus too for not telling him about the vetting failure of Mandelson

    Sacking Romeo 2 months after McSweeney went and having sacked Gray a year or so before is surely terminal? You cant have a PM with a conveyer belt of CoS all being dismissed
    You can if you are as stubborn as SKS
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814
    I've written many 'cover your arse' emails and know one when I see it
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,599
    Saudia Arabia switches focus to cricket after doubts over LIV Golf funding

    Global T20 competition, which would sit alongside existing franchise tournaments rather than compete with them, has been proposed
    new


    Saudi Arabia is exploring ramping up its interest in cricket as doubts grow over the future of its LIV Golf project.

    At the centre of the plans is a proposed global T20 competition as well as developing greater relationships with existing franchise leagues and continuing the development of its own domestic system, with an increasing number of people playing cricket in the Kingdom.

    Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) recently approved a new five-year strategy focusing on projects that will bring significant economic impact.

    To date the PIF has invested more than £3.7billion into LIV but the breakaway tour is yet to turn a profit, with LIV chief executive Scott O’Neil admitting recently that it was unlikely it would do so for at least five years and possibly ten. LIV players expect funding from the PIF to end after the 2026 season, but business insiders have said that cricket is increasingly attractive to the Saudis because it has a bigger commercial base and lower entry barriers.

    The proposed global T20 competition is only in the early stages of discussion but the concept involves a series of events across multiple venues. It is understood that it would sit alongside existing franchise tournaments rather than compete with them.


    https://www.thetimes.com/sport/cricket/article/saudia-arabia-switches-focus-to-cricket-after-doubts-over-liv-golf-funding-qb26cpvxq
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,434
    None of this begins to explain why Starmer used cautious legalistic language ('process followed in full' stuff) about the appointment process in the House of Commons for months, when according to his story he would of course have assumed that he knew that PeterM has passed the vetting process in the usual way. He managed to say the untruth outside the HoC (February) but curiously not inside.

    He knew. As did Cooper - the Independent, IIRC, have spoted a similar trend.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 20,986
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Well, now.

    This time last year I was in hospital. During my stay the Supreme Court judgment on the proper interpretation of the Equality Act came out - on 16 April 2025. A year later the government has yet to issue the guidance to help service providers. It has said it will do so in May which means that it may not come into force until September, a year and a half after the judgment of the UK's top court. This delay puts service providers at legal risk, though of course they should be taking legal advice on the law, and it has given those who don't want to comply an excuse for not doing so. Even the UN has stated that British women and girls have been "left exposed" by the government's failure.

    This behaviour shows utter contempt for Britain's women, the Supreme Court and the rule of law itself. Remarkably, it is happening under a government led by a piously self-regarding human rights lawyer with an Attorney-General insistent on compliance with every dot and comma of international law but blithely unconcerned with the government's failure to comply with domestic law. Taking its cue from this, the civil service has refused to withdraw its current unlawful internal policies, presumably on the basis that if the government can't be arsed with paying attention to the law, why should they be.

    Still Streeting came out with a renewed Women's Health Strategy on Tuesday - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/womens-voices-to-be-at-the-heart-of-renewed-health-strategy - because of the terrible effects of misogyny in the NHS.

    Which is lovely.

    So I may write to him and point out that -
    1. Invasive lobular breast cancer, which I have, is the 2nd most common type of breast cancer.
    2. The current screening programme is ineffective at detecting it - either with mammograms, ultrasound or physical examination.
    3. Women are not told this when they go for screening. They are given false reassurance, as I was, for many years. So that barely a year after a screening which told me there was no problem, I was told that not only had I had it for some time but it had progressed to Stage 4 and was now in my spine, ribs and pelvis. It is incurable. This false reassurance - and dismal outcome - is probably happening to other women right now, some of whom will be your wives, daughters, sisters, mothers etc.,.
    4. Is this an example of the medical misogyny he is talking about and, if so, what is he proposing to do about this?

    I am very happy to raise my voice on this but given that I first raised this issue with my health trust last November and got a reply at the end of March, how serious is he. Because frankly whatever Ministers from the PM down say about women & girls strikes me as so much hot air with little action behind it.
    I hope you are doing as well as possible at this time. The Breast Screening Programme is meant to tell people that it can miss cancers. I don’t know what you were told, but it is in the leaflets and in the online information. https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/breast-screening-mammogram/why-breast-screening-is-done/ says, “Other risks of breast screening include: cancer being missed – mammograms do not always find a cancer that is there”. While https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/breast-screening-helping-women-decide/nhs-breast-screening-helping-you-decide says, “This [negative] result does not guarantee that you do not have breast cancer or will not develop it in the future. Please contact your GP surgery as soon as possible if you notice any unusual changes to your breasts.” That same page later says, when discussing the risks of the screening programme:

    No screening test is 100% reliable.

    Very rarely, a cancer may be missed. Screening does not always find a cancer that is there. Sometimes cancers cannot be seen on the mammogram.

    Breast cancer can also develop in the time between screening appointments. You still need to look at and feel your breasts regularly, so you are aware of any unusual changes. Please contact your GP surgery as soon as possible if you think you have symptoms of breast cancer.


    It is a known problem with all screening services that people will, naturally, take a negative test to mean they’ve nothing to worry about, and they may then ignore or miss symptoms. It is important that people are fully informed of what their test results mean.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814

    Saudia Arabia switches focus to cricket after doubts over LIV Golf funding

    Global T20 competition, which would sit alongside existing franchise tournaments rather than compete with them, has been proposed
    new


    Saudi Arabia is exploring ramping up its interest in cricket as doubts grow over the future of its LIV Golf project.

    At the centre of the plans is a proposed global T20 competition as well as developing greater relationships with existing franchise leagues and continuing the development of its own domestic system, with an increasing number of people playing cricket in the Kingdom.

    Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) recently approved a new five-year strategy focusing on projects that will bring significant economic impact.

    To date the PIF has invested more than £3.7billion into LIV but the breakaway tour is yet to turn a profit, with LIV chief executive Scott O’Neil admitting recently that it was unlikely it would do so for at least five years and possibly ten. LIV players expect funding from the PIF to end after the 2026 season, but business insiders have said that cricket is increasingly attractive to the Saudis because it has a bigger commercial base and lower entry barriers.

    The proposed global T20 competition is only in the early stages of discussion but the concept involves a series of events across multiple venues. It is understood that it would sit alongside existing franchise tournaments rather than compete with them.


    https://www.thetimes.com/sport/cricket/article/saudia-arabia-switches-focus-to-cricket-after-doubts-over-liv-golf-funding-qb26cpvxq

    Take a dying sport and ruin it, eh, Saudi Arabia? Leave poor cricket alone.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,599
    kle4 said:

    Saudia Arabia switches focus to cricket after doubts over LIV Golf funding

    Global T20 competition, which would sit alongside existing franchise tournaments rather than compete with them, has been proposed
    new


    Saudi Arabia is exploring ramping up its interest in cricket as doubts grow over the future of its LIV Golf project.

    At the centre of the plans is a proposed global T20 competition as well as developing greater relationships with existing franchise leagues and continuing the development of its own domestic system, with an increasing number of people playing cricket in the Kingdom.

    Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) recently approved a new five-year strategy focusing on projects that will bring significant economic impact.

    To date the PIF has invested more than £3.7billion into LIV but the breakaway tour is yet to turn a profit, with LIV chief executive Scott O’Neil admitting recently that it was unlikely it would do so for at least five years and possibly ten. LIV players expect funding from the PIF to end after the 2026 season, but business insiders have said that cricket is increasingly attractive to the Saudis because it has a bigger commercial base and lower entry barriers.

    The proposed global T20 competition is only in the early stages of discussion but the concept involves a series of events across multiple venues. It is understood that it would sit alongside existing franchise tournaments rather than compete with them.


    https://www.thetimes.com/sport/cricket/article/saudia-arabia-switches-focus-to-cricket-after-doubts-over-liv-golf-funding-qb26cpvxq

    Take a dying sport and ruin it, eh, Saudi Arabia? Leave poor cricket alone.
    To be honest, it is the Indians that are ruining the sport, we need somebody else to try and make it competitive again.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,325
    edited April 17
    In other news the Tisza seat count goes up to 139 seats as we’re seeing overseas and domestic transfer votes( these when people working or studying from home vote in a different constituency from their home address ) , now being counted .

    These were expected to strongly favour them . They’ve flipped two Fidesz seats and have a good chance to flip one more on the constituency list .

    There’s also a chance they could add another from the national list .

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,388

    nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    Burnham grates on me and he isn’t even an MP yet. I’d rather Rayner took over .

    Burnham is a legend (in his own mind).
    My view is that Burnham would make a better PM but in the cage fight that the next election is going to be between Farage, Polanski and Labour then she is a better choice.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,924

    nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    Burnham grates on me and he isn’t even an MP yet. I’d rather Rayner took over .

    Burnham is a legend (in his own mind).
    He doesn't have the sort of modest self effacing behaviour that you associate with alumni of the University of Cambridge.
    Burnham went to a comprehensive beforehand and got in to Cambridge only on his second attempt after rejection after interview the year before., attending Fitzwilliam, a relatively new college.

    So he probably doesn't have quite the same sense of ego of an Old Etonian who got into Trinity College Cambridge first time round and then went on to a top career at the commercial or public Bar or in the City
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Well, now.

    This time last year I was in hospital. During my stay the Supreme Court judgment on the proper interpretation of the Equality Act came out - on 16 April 2025. A year later the government has yet to issue the guidance to help service providers. It has said it will do so in May which means that it may not come into force until September, a year and a half after the judgment of the UK's top court. This delay puts service providers at legal risk, though of course they should be taking legal advice on the law, and it has given those who don't want to comply an excuse for not doing so. Even the UN has stated that British women and girls have been "left exposed" by the government's failure.

    This behaviour shows utter contempt for Britain's women, the Supreme Court and the rule of law itself. Remarkably, it is happening under a government led by a piously self-regarding human rights lawyer with an Attorney-General insistent on compliance with every dot and comma of international law but blithely unconcerned with the government's failure to comply with domestic law. Taking its cue from this, the civil service has refused to withdraw its current unlawful internal policies, presumably on the basis that if the government can't be arsed with paying attention to the law, why should they be.

    Still Streeting came out with a renewed Women's Health Strategy on Tuesday - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/womens-voices-to-be-at-the-heart-of-renewed-health-strategy - because of the terrible effects of misogyny in the NHS.

    Which is lovely.

    So I may write to him and point out that -
    1. Invasive lobular breast cancer, which I have, is the 2nd most common type of breast cancer.
    2. The current screening programme is ineffective at detecting it - either with mammograms, ultrasound or physical examination.
    3. Women are not told this when they go for screening. They are given false reassurance, as I was, for many years. So that barely a year after a screening which told me there was no problem, I was told that not only had I had it for some time but it had progressed to Stage 4 and was now in my spine, ribs and pelvis. It is incurable. This false reassurance - and dismal outcome - is probably happening to other women right now, some of whom will be your wives, daughters, sisters, mothers etc.,.
    4. Is this an example of the medical misogyny he is talking about and, if so, what is he proposing to do about this?

    I am very happy to raise my voice on this but given that I first raised this issue with my health trust last November and got a reply at the end of March, how serious is he. Because frankly whatever Ministers from the PM down say about women & girls strikes me as so much hot air with little action behind it.
    it’s not much consolation, in fact it’s not any consolation, but I do admire your fierce and lucid bravery in the face of grisly news. Also, as a sort of religious person, I sometimes say prayers for you. Because: you never know?

    I am right now in the hometown of St Patrick: Downpatrick (and very pretty and English it is too). His handsome cathedral, and supposed burial site, is just up the road. I will say a prayer for you there, too, tomorrow
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,924
    edited April 17

    nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    Burnham grates on me and he isn’t even an MP yet. I’d rather Rayner took over .

    Burnham is a legend (in his own mind).
    My view is that Burnham would make a better PM but in the cage fight that the next election is going to be between Farage, Polanski and Labour then she is a better choice.
    Labour would leak voters to the Tories and LDs under Rayner they wouldn't with Burnham.

    Burnham also polls better with Green voters still than SKS
  • isamisam Posts: 44,230
    Cyclefree said:

    This article is worth reading - https://frasernelson.substack.com/p/why-starmers-silence-on-andy-malkinson.

    It's about the Andy Malkinson case. He was the man wrongly convicted of rape who was eventually released. The man who did do the rape has now been convicted.

    But it's what this case says about our institutions which is important. And about the CPS. Starmer was DPP at the time.

    As Nelson says -

    "Organisations supposed to protect us, keep us safe and ensure justice can fail, egregiously. Reports say so, then the pattern of failure continues with really quite severe circumstances. But the Malkinson case stands out, not least because Sir Keir Starmer was running the Crown Prosecution Service at the time - and not only has he said he didn’t know about the case (which has turned out to be a bit of a theme with him) but that he should not have been told. It’s this reaction, or lack thereof, that I find fascinating. You would think a lawyer committed to justice would be more shocked than anyone about the Malkinson case as a complete failure of the British state: an example of a system in possession of evidence that could have exonerated a man, which instead sat on that evidence while he spent another 11 years in jail."

    He goes on - "There is, to be clear, no evidence that Sir Keir personally saw the Malkinson file. The CPS has said the decision was made by a reviewing lawyer. In that sense his case mirrors his defences on Savile, on the Rochdale grooming gangs, on the Post Office Horizon prosecutions - in each instance, the defence has been that the file did not cross his desk."

    But when he was in charge the CPS did know - in 2009 - that there was forensic evidence exonerating Malkinson. It did nothing. Malkinson spent another 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. And Starmer has done nothing since.

    "If anyone in public life should be able to explain what went wrong - institutionally, culturally, psychologically - between the 2009 CPS note and the 2020 release, it is the former DPP. The case is a gift to anyone who wants to argue that the British state systematically resists confronting its own errors.

    And yet the Prime Minister’s line is not that he wants to confront it. His line is that he wasn’t told, and that he shouldn’t have been. That is not the reaction of a lawyer who thinks the Malkinson case is important. It is the reaction of a politician who thinks it is dangerous."

    We are seeing the same behaviour now over Mandelson.

    This is not the mark of a leader nor of someone who can even begin to repair the shredded competence and integrity of our institutions.

    As Nelson says, it is a theme with Starmer. He knows all the tricks in the book to weasel out of any mistake he makes, and he seems to make plenty. As insincere as it comes.

    A vegetarian who eats chicken when he's a bit hungry
    A multi millionaire whose brother died in poverty
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 56,870
    edited April 17
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Well, now.

    This time last year I was in hospital. During my stay the Supreme Court judgment on the proper interpretation of the Equality Act came out - on 16 April 2025. A year later the government has yet to issue the guidance to help service providers. It has said it will do so in May which means that it may not come into force until September, a year and a half after the judgment of the UK's top court. This delay puts service providers at legal risk, though of course they should be taking legal advice on the law, and it has given those who don't want to comply an excuse for not doing so. Even the UN has stated that British women and girls have been "left exposed" by the government's failure.

    This behaviour shows utter contempt for Britain's women, the Supreme Court and the rule of law itself. Remarkably, it is happening under a government led by a piously self-regarding human rights lawyer with an Attorney-General insistent on compliance with every dot and comma of international law but blithely unconcerned with the government's failure to comply with domestic law. Taking its cue from this, the civil service has refused to withdraw its current unlawful internal policies, presumably on the basis that if the government can't be arsed with paying attention to the law, why should they be.

    Still Streeting came out with a renewed Women's Health Strategy on Tuesday - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/womens-voices-to-be-at-the-heart-of-renewed-health-strategy - because of the terrible effects of misogyny in the NHS.

    Which is lovely.

    So I may write to him and point out that -
    1. Invasive lobular breast cancer, which I have, is the 2nd most common type of breast cancer.
    2. The current screening programme is ineffective at detecting it - either with mammograms, ultrasound or physical examination.
    3. Women are not told this when they go for screening. They are given false reassurance, as I was, for many years. So that barely a year after a screening which told me there was no problem, I was told that not only had I had it for some time but it had progressed to Stage 4 and was now in my spine, ribs and pelvis. It is incurable. This false reassurance - and dismal outcome - is probably happening to other women right now, some of whom will be your wives, daughters, sisters, mothers etc.,.
    4. Is this an example of the medical misogyny he is talking about and, if so, what is he proposing to do about this?

    I am very happy to raise my voice on this but given that I first raised this issue with my health trust last November and got a reply at the end of March, how serious is he. Because frankly whatever Ministers from the PM down say about women & girls strikes me as so much hot air with little action behind it.
    9 years ago one of my cousins was also diagnosed with breast cancer that was stage 4 at presentation. It was also not picked up on mammogram., so she was also unlucky.

    I don't think it medical misogyny. If such tumours are undetectable by mammogram, ultrasound or self examination then how could they be screened for? In order to screen, we need a suitable test.

    No screening programme picks up all lesions, there are always false positives and false negatives as well fresh lesions that pop up between screening events and progress quickly.

    Have you had your screening mammograms reviewed? Was anything missed? If not, then it isn't the fault of the screening programme.

    The information leaflet/weblink about breast screening is quite clear that mammography cannot find all breast cancers, so I do not think that the accusation of false reassurance is correct.

    https://www.uhmb.nhs.uk/our-services/services/breast-services

    Best wishes
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,694

    HYUFD said:

    Looks like Starmer is safe, though he will probably have to throw Romeo and Little under the bus too for not telling him about the vetting failure of Mandelson

    Sacking Romeo 2 months after McSweeney went and having sacked Gray a year or so before is surely terminal? You cant have a PM with a conveyer belt of CoS all being dismissed
    Fortune's fool.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,828

    nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    Burnham grates on me and he isn’t even an MP yet. I’d rather Rayner took over .

    Burnham is a legend (in his own mind).
    He doesn't have the sort of modest self effacing behaviour that you associate with alumni of the University of Cambridge.
    I didn't know Burnham was a Cantab man. I thought he was an alumni of Scumbag College.
  • nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    Burnham grates on me and he isn’t even an MP yet. I’d rather Rayner took over .

    Burnham is a legend (in his own mind).
    My view is that Burnham would make a better PM but in the cage fight that the next election is going to be between Farage, Polanski and Labour then she is a better choice.
    Agreed. Rayner has a genuinely tough backstory, and she is pukka working class. I suspect she is properly bright, you don’t get as far as she has - with her background, in the misogynistic Labour Party - without native cunning and wit

    I abhor most of her politics but I admire her grit and sass. I don’t give a fuck about her taxes, tho her hypocrisy does grate

    I reckon she’d be a better prime minister than Starmer and she’d be better electioneer than Starmer, Burnham or any of them. She could retrieve some working class Reformers and women who are drifting to Green
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,240
    Cyclefree said:

    This article is worth reading - https://frasernelson.substack.com/p/why-starmers-silence-on-andy-malkinson.

    It's about the Andy Malkinson case. He was the man wrongly convicted of rape who was eventually released. The man who did do the rape has now been convicted.

    But it's what this case says about our institutions which is important. And about the CPS. Starmer was DPP at the time.

    As Nelson says -

    "Organisations supposed to protect us, keep us safe and ensure justice can fail, egregiously. Reports say so, then the pattern of failure continues with really quite severe circumstances. But the Malkinson case stands out, not least because Sir Keir Starmer was running the Crown Prosecution Service at the time - and not only has he said he didn’t know about the case (which has turned out to be a bit of a theme with him) but that he should not have been told. It’s this reaction, or lack thereof, that I find fascinating. You would think a lawyer committed to justice would be more shocked than anyone about the Malkinson case as a complete failure of the British state: an example of a system in possession of evidence that could have exonerated a man, which instead sat on that evidence while he spent another 11 years in jail."

    He goes on - "There is, to be clear, no evidence that Sir Keir personally saw the Malkinson file. The CPS has said the decision was made by a reviewing lawyer. In that sense his case mirrors his defences on Savile, on the Rochdale grooming gangs, on the Post Office Horizon prosecutions - in each instance, the defence has been that the file did not cross his desk."

    But when he was in charge the CPS did know - in 2009 - that there was forensic evidence exonerating Malkinson. It did nothing. Malkinson spent another 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. And Starmer has done nothing since.

    "If anyone in public life should be able to explain what went wrong - institutionally, culturally, psychologically - between the 2009 CPS note and the 2020 release, it is the former DPP. The case is a gift to anyone who wants to argue that the British state systematically resists confronting its own errors.

    And yet the Prime Minister’s line is not that he wants to confront it. His line is that he wasn’t told, and that he shouldn’t have been. That is not the reaction of a lawyer who thinks the Malkinson case is important. It is the reaction of a politician who thinks it is dangerous."

    We are seeing the same behaviour now over Mandelson.

    This is not the mark of a leader nor of someone who can even begin to repair the shredded competence and integrity of our institutions.

    Yes. The defining feature of Starmer appears to be that he doesn't want to know.

    How can you fix a problem if you don't know about it?

    It's kinda staggering. I don't think Starmer is actively malign in the way that Trump is, but he's as damaging as it's possible to be without trying to wreck things.
  • kle4 said:

    Saudia Arabia switches focus to cricket after doubts over LIV Golf funding

    Global T20 competition, which would sit alongside existing franchise tournaments rather than compete with them, has been proposed
    new


    Saudi Arabia is exploring ramping up its interest in cricket as doubts grow over the future of its LIV Golf project.

    At the centre of the plans is a proposed global T20 competition as well as developing greater relationships with existing franchise leagues and continuing the development of its own domestic system, with an increasing number of people playing cricket in the Kingdom.

    Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) recently approved a new five-year strategy focusing on projects that will bring significant economic impact.

    To date the PIF has invested more than £3.7billion into LIV but the breakaway tour is yet to turn a profit, with LIV chief executive Scott O’Neil admitting recently that it was unlikely it would do so for at least five years and possibly ten. LIV players expect funding from the PIF to end after the 2026 season, but business insiders have said that cricket is increasingly attractive to the Saudis because it has a bigger commercial base and lower entry barriers.

    The proposed global T20 competition is only in the early stages of discussion but the concept involves a series of events across multiple venues. It is understood that it would sit alongside existing franchise tournaments rather than compete with them.


    https://www.thetimes.com/sport/cricket/article/saudia-arabia-switches-focus-to-cricket-after-doubts-over-liv-golf-funding-qb26cpvxq

    Take a dying sport and ruin it, eh, Saudi Arabia? Leave poor cricket alone.
    Cricket is certainly not “dying”. It has never been more popular, worldwide, and has never been richer

    The trouble is all the money and much of the popularity is in South Asia and it is directed at a truncated version of the sport. But, still, it is not dying
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,599
    isam said:

    Cyclefree said:

    This article is worth reading - https://frasernelson.substack.com/p/why-starmers-silence-on-andy-malkinson.

    It's about the Andy Malkinson case. He was the man wrongly convicted of rape who was eventually released. The man who did do the rape has now been convicted.

    But it's what this case says about our institutions which is important. And about the CPS. Starmer was DPP at the time.

    As Nelson says -

    "Organisations supposed to protect us, keep us safe and ensure justice can fail, egregiously. Reports say so, then the pattern of failure continues with really quite severe circumstances. But the Malkinson case stands out, not least because Sir Keir Starmer was running the Crown Prosecution Service at the time - and not only has he said he didn’t know about the case (which has turned out to be a bit of a theme with him) but that he should not have been told. It’s this reaction, or lack thereof, that I find fascinating. You would think a lawyer committed to justice would be more shocked than anyone about the Malkinson case as a complete failure of the British state: an example of a system in possession of evidence that could have exonerated a man, which instead sat on that evidence while he spent another 11 years in jail."

    He goes on - "There is, to be clear, no evidence that Sir Keir personally saw the Malkinson file. The CPS has said the decision was made by a reviewing lawyer. In that sense his case mirrors his defences on Savile, on the Rochdale grooming gangs, on the Post Office Horizon prosecutions - in each instance, the defence has been that the file did not cross his desk."

    But when he was in charge the CPS did know - in 2009 - that there was forensic evidence exonerating Malkinson. It did nothing. Malkinson spent another 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. And Starmer has done nothing since.

    "If anyone in public life should be able to explain what went wrong - institutionally, culturally, psychologically - between the 2009 CPS note and the 2020 release, it is the former DPP. The case is a gift to anyone who wants to argue that the British state systematically resists confronting its own errors.

    And yet the Prime Minister’s line is not that he wants to confront it. His line is that he wasn’t told, and that he shouldn’t have been. That is not the reaction of a lawyer who thinks the Malkinson case is important. It is the reaction of a politician who thinks it is dangerous."

    We are seeing the same behaviour now over Mandelson.

    This is not the mark of a leader nor of someone who can even begin to repair the shredded competence and integrity of our institutions.

    As Nelson says, it is a theme with Starmer. He knows all the tricks in the book to weasel out of any mistake he makes, and he seems to make plenty. As insincere as it comes.

    A vegetarian who eats chicken when he's a bit hungry
    A multi millionaire whose brother died in poverty
    There's a reason why only the crank left have attacked Starmer over this and why the media and his political opponents haven't.

    The quote was about virtual poverty, Starmer had been helping out his brother for years, for the first part his adult life his brother refused any help, it was later on that he accepted the support of his brother.

    As with a lot of millionaires, Starmer most of Starmer's millions aren't in cash.

    If he had spoken publicly about helping his brother those with Starmer derangement syndrome would be criticising Starmer for exploiting his brother.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,924
    edited April 17
    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    Burnham grates on me and he isn’t even an MP yet. I’d rather Rayner took over .

    Burnham is a legend (in his own mind).
    My view is that Burnham would make a better PM but in the cage fight that the next election is going to be between Farage, Polanski and Labour then she is a better choice.
    Agreed. Rayner has a genuinely tough backstory, and she is pukka working class. I suspect she is properly bright, you don’t get as far as she has - with her background, in the misogynistic Labour Party - without native cunning and wit

    I abhor most of her politics but I admire her grit and sass. I don’t give a fuck about her taxes, tho her hypocrisy does grate

    I reckon she’d be a better prime minister than Starmer and she’d be better electioneer than Starmer, Burnham or any of them. She could retrieve some working class Reformers and women who are drifting to Green
    She would leak middle class voters from Labour to the Tories and LDs even if she won back some working class voters from Reform and she wouldn't have any more appeal to the Greens than Burnham does either.

    Rayner would basically be a female Neil Kinnock
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,388
    "It means the government was left in an extraordinary situation this week where not a single member of staff still in post at FCDO had seen Mandelson’s full vetting report."



    "Cabinet ministers are tonight reserving judgment on whether Starmer can survive this."


    https://x.com/alexwickham/status/2045201885859393935


    Long tweet - loads of detail. None of it good for Starmer. Gonna be a hell of a long weekend in his household.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,599

    Cyclefree said:

    This article is worth reading - https://frasernelson.substack.com/p/why-starmers-silence-on-andy-malkinson.

    It's about the Andy Malkinson case. He was the man wrongly convicted of rape who was eventually released. The man who did do the rape has now been convicted.

    But it's what this case says about our institutions which is important. And about the CPS. Starmer was DPP at the time.

    As Nelson says -

    "Organisations supposed to protect us, keep us safe and ensure justice can fail, egregiously. Reports say so, then the pattern of failure continues with really quite severe circumstances. But the Malkinson case stands out, not least because Sir Keir Starmer was running the Crown Prosecution Service at the time - and not only has he said he didn’t know about the case (which has turned out to be a bit of a theme with him) but that he should not have been told. It’s this reaction, or lack thereof, that I find fascinating. You would think a lawyer committed to justice would be more shocked than anyone about the Malkinson case as a complete failure of the British state: an example of a system in possession of evidence that could have exonerated a man, which instead sat on that evidence while he spent another 11 years in jail."

    He goes on - "There is, to be clear, no evidence that Sir Keir personally saw the Malkinson file. The CPS has said the decision was made by a reviewing lawyer. In that sense his case mirrors his defences on Savile, on the Rochdale grooming gangs, on the Post Office Horizon prosecutions - in each instance, the defence has been that the file did not cross his desk."

    But when he was in charge the CPS did know - in 2009 - that there was forensic evidence exonerating Malkinson. It did nothing. Malkinson spent another 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. And Starmer has done nothing since.

    "If anyone in public life should be able to explain what went wrong - institutionally, culturally, psychologically - between the 2009 CPS note and the 2020 release, it is the former DPP. The case is a gift to anyone who wants to argue that the British state systematically resists confronting its own errors.

    And yet the Prime Minister’s line is not that he wants to confront it. His line is that he wasn’t told, and that he shouldn’t have been. That is not the reaction of a lawyer who thinks the Malkinson case is important. It is the reaction of a politician who thinks it is dangerous."

    We are seeing the same behaviour now over Mandelson.

    This is not the mark of a leader nor of someone who can even begin to repair the shredded competence and integrity of our institutions.

    Yes. The defining feature of Starmer appears to be that he doesn't want to know.

    How can you fix a problem if you don't know about it?

    It's kinda staggering. I don't think Starmer is actively malign in the way that Trump is, but he's as damaging as it's possible to be without trying to wreck things.
    I still think the theory that he never wanted to be an MP/the peak of his ambition was to be Lord Chancellor/Attorney General and events conspired against him explains a lot about him.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195
    Looks like this Daniel Kinahan guy, who is apparently a dodgy geezer but I follow on Twitter as he posts ‘rack of the day’, may have been arrested but just tweeted. So maybe not.

    https://x.com/wantedkinahan/status/2045202999715189148?s=61
  • Managed to get to the Cathedral just before it got dark


    Lush

    i do admire the way the French protect their ancient town centres. Proper attention is paid

    I am trying to identify the place, without internet assistance. France has a LOT of cathedrals. The half timbered houses suggest Alsace, the Jura, eastern France. The cathedral is not perfect or huge so not a major city. Hmmm

    But then I THINK I vaguely remember you saying you were walking from south Brittany, which confuses things. And western France does also have a lot of that half timbering

    I am gonna say.. Vannes. But with about 6% confidence

  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,447

    "It means the government was left in an extraordinary situation this week where not a single member of staff still in post at FCDO had seen Mandelson’s full vetting report."



    "Cabinet ministers are tonight reserving judgment on whether Starmer can survive this."


    https://x.com/alexwickham/status/2045201885859393935


    Long tweet - loads of detail. None of it good for Starmer. Gonna be a hell of a long weekend in his household.

    The similarities with the safeguarding trap become more & more pronounced. Confidentiality forbids forewarning.
  • isam said:

    Cyclefree said:

    This article is worth reading - https://frasernelson.substack.com/p/why-starmers-silence-on-andy-malkinson.

    It's about the Andy Malkinson case. He was the man wrongly convicted of rape who was eventually released. The man who did do the rape has now been convicted.

    But it's what this case says about our institutions which is important. And about the CPS. Starmer was DPP at the time.

    As Nelson says -

    "Organisations supposed to protect us, keep us safe and ensure justice can fail, egregiously. Reports say so, then the pattern of failure continues with really quite severe circumstances. But the Malkinson case stands out, not least because Sir Keir Starmer was running the Crown Prosecution Service at the time - and not only has he said he didn’t know about the case (which has turned out to be a bit of a theme with him) but that he should not have been told. It’s this reaction, or lack thereof, that I find fascinating. You would think a lawyer committed to justice would be more shocked than anyone about the Malkinson case as a complete failure of the British state: an example of a system in possession of evidence that could have exonerated a man, which instead sat on that evidence while he spent another 11 years in jail."

    He goes on - "There is, to be clear, no evidence that Sir Keir personally saw the Malkinson file. The CPS has said the decision was made by a reviewing lawyer. In that sense his case mirrors his defences on Savile, on the Rochdale grooming gangs, on the Post Office Horizon prosecutions - in each instance, the defence has been that the file did not cross his desk."

    But when he was in charge the CPS did know - in 2009 - that there was forensic evidence exonerating Malkinson. It did nothing. Malkinson spent another 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. And Starmer has done nothing since.

    "If anyone in public life should be able to explain what went wrong - institutionally, culturally, psychologically - between the 2009 CPS note and the 2020 release, it is the former DPP. The case is a gift to anyone who wants to argue that the British state systematically resists confronting its own errors.

    And yet the Prime Minister’s line is not that he wants to confront it. His line is that he wasn’t told, and that he shouldn’t have been. That is not the reaction of a lawyer who thinks the Malkinson case is important. It is the reaction of a politician who thinks it is dangerous."

    We are seeing the same behaviour now over Mandelson.

    This is not the mark of a leader nor of someone who can even begin to repair the shredded competence and integrity of our institutions.

    As Nelson says, it is a theme with Starmer. He knows all the tricks in the book to weasel out of any mistake he makes, and he seems to make plenty. As insincere as it comes.

    A vegetarian who eats chicken when he's a bit hungry
    A multi millionaire whose brother died in poverty
    There's a reason why only the crank left have attacked Starmer over this and why the media and his political opponents haven't.

    The quote was about virtual poverty, Starmer had been helping out his brother for years, for the first part his adult life his brother refused any help, it was later on that he accepted the support of his brother.

    As with a lot of millionaires, Starmer most of Starmer's millions aren't in cash.

    If he had spoken publicly about helping his brother those with Starmer derangement syndrome would be criticising Starmer for exploiting his brother.
    Well said, and important. Plenty to criticise him for without getting into that sort of half baked nonsense.

    See also people gibbering on about his special pension scheme. You know they haven't a clue about the context or the background.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814
    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Saudia Arabia switches focus to cricket after doubts over LIV Golf funding

    Global T20 competition, which would sit alongside existing franchise tournaments rather than compete with them, has been proposed
    new


    Saudi Arabia is exploring ramping up its interest in cricket as doubts grow over the future of its LIV Golf project.

    At the centre of the plans is a proposed global T20 competition as well as developing greater relationships with existing franchise leagues and continuing the development of its own domestic system, with an increasing number of people playing cricket in the Kingdom.

    Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) recently approved a new five-year strategy focusing on projects that will bring significant economic impact.

    To date the PIF has invested more than £3.7billion into LIV but the breakaway tour is yet to turn a profit, with LIV chief executive Scott O’Neil admitting recently that it was unlikely it would do so for at least five years and possibly ten. LIV players expect funding from the PIF to end after the 2026 season, but business insiders have said that cricket is increasingly attractive to the Saudis because it has a bigger commercial base and lower entry barriers.

    The proposed global T20 competition is only in the early stages of discussion but the concept involves a series of events across multiple venues. It is understood that it would sit alongside existing franchise tournaments rather than compete with them.


    https://www.thetimes.com/sport/cricket/article/saudia-arabia-switches-focus-to-cricket-after-doubts-over-liv-golf-funding-qb26cpvxq

    Take a dying sport and ruin it, eh, Saudi Arabia? Leave poor cricket alone.
    Cricket is certainly not “dying”. It has never been more popular, worldwide, and has never been richer

    The trouble is all the money and much of the popularity is in South Asia and it is directed at a truncated version of the sport. But, still, it is not dying
    Twenty20 is better than nothing, but still
  • isamisam Posts: 44,230
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Saudia Arabia switches focus to cricket after doubts over LIV Golf funding

    Global T20 competition, which would sit alongside existing franchise tournaments rather than compete with them, has been proposed
    new


    Saudi Arabia is exploring ramping up its interest in cricket as doubts grow over the future of its LIV Golf project.

    At the centre of the plans is a proposed global T20 competition as well as developing greater relationships with existing franchise leagues and continuing the development of its own domestic system, with an increasing number of people playing cricket in the Kingdom.

    Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) recently approved a new five-year strategy focusing on projects that will bring significant economic impact.

    To date the PIF has invested more than £3.7billion into LIV but the breakaway tour is yet to turn a profit, with LIV chief executive Scott O’Neil admitting recently that it was unlikely it would do so for at least five years and possibly ten. LIV players expect funding from the PIF to end after the 2026 season, but business insiders have said that cricket is increasingly attractive to the Saudis because it has a bigger commercial base and lower entry barriers.

    The proposed global T20 competition is only in the early stages of discussion but the concept involves a series of events across multiple venues. It is understood that it would sit alongside existing franchise tournaments rather than compete with them.


    https://www.thetimes.com/sport/cricket/article/saudia-arabia-switches-focus-to-cricket-after-doubts-over-liv-golf-funding-qb26cpvxq

    Take a dying sport and ruin it, eh, Saudi Arabia? Leave poor cricket alone.
    Cricket is certainly not “dying”. It has never been more popular, worldwide, and has never been richer

    The trouble is all the money and much of the popularity is in South Asia and it is directed at a truncated version of the sport. But, still, it is not dying
    Twenty20 is better than nothing, but still
    I am reading Fatty Batter by Michael Simkins... quite a nice book about love of the game at the lowest level
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814
    edited April 17

    Cyclefree said:

    This article is worth reading - https://frasernelson.substack.com/p/why-starmers-silence-on-andy-malkinson.

    It's about the Andy Malkinson case. He was the man wrongly convicted of rape who was eventually released. The man who did do the rape has now been convicted.

    But it's what this case says about our institutions which is important. And about the CPS. Starmer was DPP at the time.

    As Nelson says -

    "Organisations supposed to protect us, keep us safe and ensure justice can fail, egregiously. Reports say so, then the pattern of failure continues with really quite severe circumstances. But the Malkinson case stands out, not least because Sir Keir Starmer was running the Crown Prosecution Service at the time - and not only has he said he didn’t know about the case (which has turned out to be a bit of a theme with him) but that he should not have been told. It’s this reaction, or lack thereof, that I find fascinating. You would think a lawyer committed to justice would be more shocked than anyone about the Malkinson case as a complete failure of the British state: an example of a system in possession of evidence that could have exonerated a man, which instead sat on that evidence while he spent another 11 years in jail."

    He goes on - "There is, to be clear, no evidence that Sir Keir personally saw the Malkinson file. The CPS has said the decision was made by a reviewing lawyer. In that sense his case mirrors his defences on Savile, on the Rochdale grooming gangs, on the Post Office Horizon prosecutions - in each instance, the defence has been that the file did not cross his desk."

    But when he was in charge the CPS did know - in 2009 - that there was forensic evidence exonerating Malkinson. It did nothing. Malkinson spent another 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. And Starmer has done nothing since.

    "If anyone in public life should be able to explain what went wrong - institutionally, culturally, psychologically - between the 2009 CPS note and the 2020 release, it is the former DPP. The case is a gift to anyone who wants to argue that the British state systematically resists confronting its own errors.

    And yet the Prime Minister’s line is not that he wants to confront it. His line is that he wasn’t told, and that he shouldn’t have been. That is not the reaction of a lawyer who thinks the Malkinson case is important. It is the reaction of a politician who thinks it is dangerous."

    We are seeing the same behaviour now over Mandelson.

    This is not the mark of a leader nor of someone who can even begin to repair the shredded competence and integrity of our institutions.

    Yes. The defining feature of Starmer appears to be that he doesn't want to know.

    How can you fix a problem if you don't know about it?

    It's kinda staggering. I don't think Starmer is actively malign in the way that Trump is, but he's as damaging as it's possible to be without trying to wreck things.
    I still think the theory that he never wanted to be an MP/the peak of his ambition was to be Lord Chancellor/Attorney General and events conspired against him explains a lot about him.
    I don't buy it. Maybe it wasn't an initial ambition but at a point you have to choose to lead.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,193

    My Tory wife is very affronted. A letter from Reform today for the Welsh Elections and personally addressed to her from Nigel. Not a mistake they will make again.

    My wife and I had the same and both were deposited in the recycling without a glance
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,828
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    Burnham grates on me and he isn’t even an MP yet. I’d rather Rayner took over .

    Burnham is a legend (in his own mind).
    My view is that Burnham would make a better PM but in the cage fight that the next election is going to be between Farage, Polanski and Labour then she is a better choice.
    Agreed. Rayner has a genuinely tough backstory, and she is pukka working class. I suspect she is properly bright, you don’t get as far as she has - with her background, in the misogynistic Labour Party - without native cunning and wit

    I abhor most of her politics but I admire her grit and sass. I don’t give a fuck about her taxes, tho her hypocrisy does grate

    I reckon she’d be a better prime minister than Starmer and she’d be better electioneer than Starmer, Burnham or any of them. She could retrieve some working class Reformers and women who are drifting to Green
    She would leak middle class voters from Labour to the Tories and LDs even if she won back some working class voters from Reform and she wouldn't have any more appeal to the Greens than Burnham does either.

    Rayner would basically be a female Neil Kinnock
    Have you never thought of some rough? Maybe not a Manc, but someone who speaks in Estuary English, drops her "h"s and operates a parallel foreign policy.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,886

    My Tory wife is very affronted. A letter from Reform today for the Welsh Elections and personally addressed to her from Nigel. Not a mistake they will make again.

    My wife and I had the same and both were deposited in the recycling without a glance
    Otherwise known as 'following the vetting process'.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,599
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    This article is worth reading - https://frasernelson.substack.com/p/why-starmers-silence-on-andy-malkinson.

    It's about the Andy Malkinson case. He was the man wrongly convicted of rape who was eventually released. The man who did do the rape has now been convicted.

    But it's what this case says about our institutions which is important. And about the CPS. Starmer was DPP at the time.

    As Nelson says -

    "Organisations supposed to protect us, keep us safe and ensure justice can fail, egregiously. Reports say so, then the pattern of failure continues with really quite severe circumstances. But the Malkinson case stands out, not least because Sir Keir Starmer was running the Crown Prosecution Service at the time - and not only has he said he didn’t know about the case (which has turned out to be a bit of a theme with him) but that he should not have been told. It’s this reaction, or lack thereof, that I find fascinating. You would think a lawyer committed to justice would be more shocked than anyone about the Malkinson case as a complete failure of the British state: an example of a system in possession of evidence that could have exonerated a man, which instead sat on that evidence while he spent another 11 years in jail."

    He goes on - "There is, to be clear, no evidence that Sir Keir personally saw the Malkinson file. The CPS has said the decision was made by a reviewing lawyer. In that sense his case mirrors his defences on Savile, on the Rochdale grooming gangs, on the Post Office Horizon prosecutions - in each instance, the defence has been that the file did not cross his desk."

    But when he was in charge the CPS did know - in 2009 - that there was forensic evidence exonerating Malkinson. It did nothing. Malkinson spent another 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. And Starmer has done nothing since.

    "If anyone in public life should be able to explain what went wrong - institutionally, culturally, psychologically - between the 2009 CPS note and the 2020 release, it is the former DPP. The case is a gift to anyone who wants to argue that the British state systematically resists confronting its own errors.

    And yet the Prime Minister’s line is not that he wants to confront it. His line is that he wasn’t told, and that he shouldn’t have been. That is not the reaction of a lawyer who thinks the Malkinson case is important. It is the reaction of a politician who thinks it is dangerous."

    We are seeing the same behaviour now over Mandelson.

    This is not the mark of a leader nor of someone who can even begin to repair the shredded competence and integrity of our institutions.

    Yes. The defining feature of Starmer appears to be that he doesn't want to know.

    How can you fix a problem if you don't know about it?

    It's kinda staggering. I don't think Starmer is actively malign in the way that Trump is, but he's as damaging as it's possible to be without trying to wreck things.
    I still think the theory that he never wanted to be an MP/the peak of his ambition was to be Lord Chancellor/Attorney General and events conspired against him explains a lot about him.
    I don't but it. Maybe it wasn't an initial ambition but at a point you have to choose to lead.
    I often think about Harry S Truman, how fate conspired against him.

    He didn't even know about the Manhattan Project then three months later he was in discussions about where to drop them.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,828

    My Tory wife is very affronted. A letter from Reform today for the Welsh Elections and personally addressed to her from Nigel. Not a mistake they will make again.

    My wife and I had the same and both were deposited in the recycling without a glance
    Return to sender, address unknown, no such number, no such zone!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,924

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    Burnham grates on me and he isn’t even an MP yet. I’d rather Rayner took over .

    Burnham is a legend (in his own mind).
    My view is that Burnham would make a better PM but in the cage fight that the next election is going to be between Farage, Polanski and Labour then she is a better choice.
    Agreed. Rayner has a genuinely tough backstory, and she is pukka working class. I suspect she is properly bright, you don’t get as far as she has - with her background, in the misogynistic Labour Party - without native cunning and wit

    I abhor most of her politics but I admire her grit and sass. I don’t give a fuck about her taxes, tho her hypocrisy does grate

    I reckon she’d be a better prime minister than Starmer and she’d be better electioneer than Starmer, Burnham or any of them. She could retrieve some working class Reformers and women who are drifting to Green
    She would leak middle class voters from Labour to the Tories and LDs even if she won back some working class voters from Reform and she wouldn't have any more appeal to the Greens than Burnham does either.

    Rayner would basically be a female Neil Kinnock
    Have you never thought of some rough? Maybe not a Manc, but someone who speaks in Estuary English, drops her "h"s and operates a parallel foreign policy.
    When have the British ever voted for someone a bit rough? Middle England prefers their leaders to be a bit more refined, even Hague's thick Yorkshire vowels and Kinnock's Welsh windbagism was too much for them
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 7,937
    Leon said:

    Managed to get to the Cathedral just before it got dark


    Lush

    i do admire the way the French protect their ancient town centres. Proper attention is paid

    I am trying to identify the place, without internet assistance. France has a LOT of cathedrals. The half timbered houses suggest Alsace, the Jura, eastern France. The cathedral is not perfect or huge so not a major city. Hmmm

    But then I THINK I vaguely remember you saying you were walking from south Brittany, which confuses things. And western France does also have a lot of that half timbering

    I am gonna say.. Vannes. But with about 6% confidence

    It is indeed Vannes, and it is lush

    I’m now sitting in a restaurant in the old ramparts of the city overlooking a beautiful garden

    I’ve ordered black pasta with salmon, and I’m rather enjoying a half bottle of muscadet while enjoying the view
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,193
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    Burnham grates on me and he isn’t even an MP yet. I’d rather Rayner took over .

    Burnham is a legend (in his own mind).
    My view is that Burnham would make a better PM but in the cage fight that the next election is going to be between Farage, Polanski and Labour then she is a better choice.
    Agreed. Rayner has a genuinely tough backstory, and she is pukka working class. I suspect she is properly bright, you don’t get as far as she has - with her background, in the misogynistic Labour Party - without native cunning and wit

    I abhor most of her politics but I admire her grit and sass. I don’t give a fuck about her taxes, tho her hypocrisy does grate

    I reckon she’d be a better prime minister than Starmer and she’d be better electioneer than Starmer, Burnham or any of them. She could retrieve some working class Reformers and women who are drifting to Green
    She would leak middle class voters from Labour to the Tories and LDs even if she won back some working class voters from Reform and she wouldn't have any more appeal to the Greens than Burnham does either.

    Rayner would basically be a female Neil Kinnock
    Have you never thought of some rough? Maybe not a Manc, but someone who speaks in Estuary English, drops her "h"s and operates a parallel foreign policy.
    When have the British ever voted for someone a bit rough? Middle England prefers their leaders to be a bit more refined, even Hague's thick Yorkshire vowels and Kinnock's Welsh windbagism was too much for them
    Competence outways all else and that seems as far away as ever
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,849

    Thankfully I can have a nice relaxing weekend and not having to worry about Sir Keir Starmer being ousted.

    Going for the old commentator's curse?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,924

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    Burnham grates on me and he isn’t even an MP yet. I’d rather Rayner took over .

    Burnham is a legend (in his own mind).
    My view is that Burnham would make a better PM but in the cage fight that the next election is going to be between Farage, Polanski and Labour then she is a better choice.
    Agreed. Rayner has a genuinely tough backstory, and she is pukka working class. I suspect she is properly bright, you don’t get as far as she has - with her background, in the misogynistic Labour Party - without native cunning and wit

    I abhor most of her politics but I admire her grit and sass. I don’t give a fuck about her taxes, tho her hypocrisy does grate

    I reckon she’d be a better prime minister than Starmer and she’d be better electioneer than Starmer, Burnham or any of them. She could retrieve some working class Reformers and women who are drifting to Green
    She would leak middle class voters from Labour to the Tories and LDs even if she won back some working class voters from Reform and she wouldn't have any more appeal to the Greens than Burnham does either.

    Rayner would basically be a female Neil Kinnock
    Have you never thought of some rough? Maybe not a Manc, but someone who speaks in Estuary English, drops her "h"s and operates a parallel foreign policy.
    When have the British ever voted for someone a bit rough? Middle England prefers their leaders to be a bit more refined, even Hague's thick Yorkshire vowels and Kinnock's Welsh windbagism was too much for them
    Competence outways all else and that seems as far away as ever
    I don't think competence is exactly Rayner's strong suit either, she can't even get her own taxes in order
  • Leon said:

    Managed to get to the Cathedral just before it got dark


    Lush

    i do admire the way the French protect their ancient town centres. Proper attention is paid

    I am trying to identify the place, without internet assistance. France has a LOT of cathedrals. The half timbered houses suggest Alsace, the Jura, eastern France. The cathedral is not perfect or huge so not a major city. Hmmm

    But then I THINK I vaguely remember you saying you were walking from south Brittany, which confuses things. And western France does also have a lot of that half timbering

    I am gonna say.. Vannes. But with about 6% confidence

    It is indeed Vannes, and it is lush

    I’m now sitting in a restaurant in the old ramparts of the city overlooking a beautiful garden

    I’ve ordered black pasta with salmon, and I’m rather enjoying a half bottle of muscadet while enjoying the view

    Huzzah!

    I was somewhat assisted by the fact you said you were walking from somewhere in south Brittany (IIRC) and also the fact that I spent a chunky 6 weeks in Brittany last year - in various sessions - and basically went everywhere. I briskly walked past that exact cathedral

    But still, yay me

    Yes Vannes is gorgeous. It’s also lovely down by the water. The oysters are magnifique, even if the food otherwise often disappoints (in my experience)

    Keep us posted with more photos! They are cheering
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted

    Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives

    It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK

    Andy Burnham stands ready to serve.

    As I posted late last night after drinks someone I trust implacably to have their finger on the pulse of deepest Labour says he's on his way.

    Burnham grates on me and he isn’t even an MP yet. I’d rather Rayner took over .

    Burnham is a legend (in his own mind).
    My view is that Burnham would make a better PM but in the cage fight that the next election is going to be between Farage, Polanski and Labour then she is a better choice.
    Agreed. Rayner has a genuinely tough backstory, and she is pukka working class. I suspect she is properly bright, you don’t get as far as she has - with her background, in the misogynistic Labour Party - without native cunning and wit

    I abhor most of her politics but I admire her grit and sass. I don’t give a fuck about her taxes, tho her hypocrisy does grate

    I reckon she’d be a better prime minister than Starmer and she’d be better electioneer than Starmer, Burnham or any of them. She could retrieve some working class Reformers and women who are drifting to Green
    She would leak middle class voters from Labour to the Tories and LDs even if she won back some working class voters from Reform and she wouldn't have any more appeal to the Greens than Burnham does either.

    Rayner would basically be a female Neil Kinnock
    Have you never thought of some rough? Maybe not a Manc, but someone who speaks in Estuary English, drops her "h"s and operates a parallel foreign policy.
    Like Sylvestra La Touzel in the ad.

    The water in Majorca ain’t quite what it oughta
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,554

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    This article is worth reading - https://frasernelson.substack.com/p/why-starmers-silence-on-andy-malkinson.

    It's about the Andy Malkinson case. He was the man wrongly convicted of rape who was eventually released. The man who did do the rape has now been convicted.

    But it's what this case says about our institutions which is important. And about the CPS. Starmer was DPP at the time.

    As Nelson says -

    "Organisations supposed to protect us, keep us safe and ensure justice can fail, egregiously. Reports say so, then the pattern of failure continues with really quite severe circumstances. But the Malkinson case stands out, not least because Sir Keir Starmer was running the Crown Prosecution Service at the time - and not only has he said he didn’t know about the case (which has turned out to be a bit of a theme with him) but that he should not have been told. It’s this reaction, or lack thereof, that I find fascinating. You would think a lawyer committed to justice would be more shocked than anyone about the Malkinson case as a complete failure of the British state: an example of a system in possession of evidence that could have exonerated a man, which instead sat on that evidence while he spent another 11 years in jail."

    He goes on - "There is, to be clear, no evidence that Sir Keir personally saw the Malkinson file. The CPS has said the decision was made by a reviewing lawyer. In that sense his case mirrors his defences on Savile, on the Rochdale grooming gangs, on the Post Office Horizon prosecutions - in each instance, the defence has been that the file did not cross his desk."

    But when he was in charge the CPS did know - in 2009 - that there was forensic evidence exonerating Malkinson. It did nothing. Malkinson spent another 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. And Starmer has done nothing since.

    "If anyone in public life should be able to explain what went wrong - institutionally, culturally, psychologically - between the 2009 CPS note and the 2020 release, it is the former DPP. The case is a gift to anyone who wants to argue that the British state systematically resists confronting its own errors.

    And yet the Prime Minister’s line is not that he wants to confront it. His line is that he wasn’t told, and that he shouldn’t have been. That is not the reaction of a lawyer who thinks the Malkinson case is important. It is the reaction of a politician who thinks it is dangerous."

    We are seeing the same behaviour now over Mandelson.

    This is not the mark of a leader nor of someone who can even begin to repair the shredded competence and integrity of our institutions.

    Yes. The defining feature of Starmer appears to be that he doesn't want to know.

    How can you fix a problem if you don't know about it?

    It's kinda staggering. I don't think Starmer is actively malign in the way that Trump is, but he's as damaging as it's possible to be without trying to wreck things.
    I still think the theory that he never wanted to be an MP/the peak of his ambition was to be Lord Chancellor/Attorney General and events conspired against him explains a lot about him.
    I don't but it. Maybe it wasn't an initial ambition but at a point you have to choose to lead.
    I often think about Harry S Truman, how fate conspired against him.

    He didn't even know about the Manhattan Project then three months later he was in discussions about where to drop them.
    Truman was (strangely for a Prendergast machine politician) a scrounge of corruption and inefficiency.

    He dived into his role of holding manufacturers to account during WWII. Opened all the cans of worms.

    Everything crossed his desk.

    When he came across the edges of the Manhattan Project it took the word of General Marshall himself to get him to back off investigating it. Marshall had to give his word of honour that it was OK, to stop Truman.
This discussion has been closed.