***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
Damian Green has resigned. I wonder if David Davis will resign as threatened.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 29 Jun 21 at 11:25
|
Having porn on your computer ten years ago is one thing. Giving inaccurate and misleading statements to the Cabinet Secretary is altogether another.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/20/damian-green-resigns-as-first-secretary-of-state-after-porn-allegations
|
|
Bet his pants were on fire at the time.
|
|
I bet more than a couple of ex-Met Bobbies are rubbing their hands in glee. Untouchable he seems to think he was..
|
|
I'll lay a pound to a penny that "There but for the grace of God go I" or "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" applies to more than a few of those that see fit to criticise.
|
|
One of the "Charges" against him was that he made a pass at journalist Kate Maltby by brushing his hand across her knee. The poor woman, I hope she wasn't too deeply traumatised by such a horrifying assault.
|
She wants to think herself lucky it ain’t the 1970’s
As a youngster in many jobs, I had to watch the older women as they could be quite predatory. Strangely enjoyable though:-)
|
>> One of the "Charges" against him was that he made a pass at journalist Kate
>> Maltby by brushing his hand across her knee. The poor woman, I hope she wasn't
>> too deeply traumatised by such a horrifying assault.
>> She wants to think herself lucky it ain’t the 1970’s
But it's not the 1970s. The world has moved on.
So how about if she'd been Kate O' Reliant or Kate Devon?
The inquiry found her a plausible witness but as it was 1:1 no definitive conclusion.
It wasn't that or the porn on his PC that got him though.
The killer was telling what were effectively lies.
|
>> The killer was telling what were effectively lies.
Come off it Brompt, he made a pass at a woman. Nothing we haven't all done from time to time, sometimes successful, sometimes not. In either case the alleged offences were to trivial to be worth more than a mention.
You are right though when you say it was lying about it that cost him his job, as always it is the cover up that kills.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 22 Dec 17 at 02:10
|
Two wrongs at work here. The police should be trusted to keep their traps shut. - If a porn offence has been committed it should be used in evidence at the right time and the right place, not by some old copper earning a few grubby quid from the news of the world.
Secondly politicians really are the most stupid arrogant morons on the planet, is this the first time one has been caught out telling porkies? No, does it always end in tears? yes, have they/will they learn from this? no.
|
>>Secondly politicians really are the most stupid arrogant morons on the planet,
The same thought has occurred to me many times. Astonishing hubris. Any normal person would assume they couldn't get away with it. Not just politicians though. People who think they have power.
|
>> Two wrongs at work here. The police should be trusted to keep their traps shut.
>> - If a porn offence has been committed it should be used in evidence at
>> the right time and the right place, not by some old copper earning a few
>> grubby quid from the news of the world.
Quite right. There is, whatever the prudes or sensationalist press say, no criminal offence in watching consenting actors playing out a straightforward scenario of legitimate sexual activity.
OTOH it's difficult to justify observing such activity to one's constituents.....
|
No, does it always end in tears?
That's what all the tissues were for then !
|
|
The problem with that is we don't know how often they tell lies and get away with it. A lot more frequently than you think I suspect. Lying in politics and indeed life in general can be a very effective strategy.
|
"Two wrongs at work here. The police should be trusted to keep their traps shut."
That's just what they want the public to believe and the default position is that they are ok because generally Cops don't go running to the press telling tales as they have to conform to a code of discipline, unlike themselves.
Bob Quick was given the poison chalice of the Leveson inquiry. Whichever way he turned he was thwarted by what appears to be the old boy network. Then had his honesty, integrity and professionalism questioned in public.
There is something bubbling in the background which has made them come forward. Why would any Copper keep records form a previous investigation and an original pocket book if they did not think they might need them as some form of insurance or they might need to expose something bigger later on?
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sat 23 Dec 17 at 01:05
|
...I have little doubt that Quick departed the police force holding a grudge, and that the overall background to the case gives enough fuel and traction to throw much pressure back onto the police to provide a convenient diversionary story. (much like the current-running diversionary story on the return of the blue passport; you know, the one we could have had all along)
It may well yet come to blow up on the Government however.
There are a number of media outlets that have chosen not to run with it at headline level, and, if the (alternate) story based on their published "facts" are to be believed, then things look rather different.
I'm not sure I agree with all the sentiment in the Guardian summary here, but if the underlying "facts" and timeline are taken at face value, it tells a rather different story.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/22/damian-green-case-former-police-officers-public-interest-brian-paddick
The document comprising the "leak" is of interest, as it doesn't appear to be an official police document at all, but an unused draft input to the Leveson Inquiry. Whilst Quick must circumstantially be the main suspect as the source, he denies it, and there appears to be no evidence that he is the culprit. His further involvement was post that revelation, in private, and to the official inquiry.
Lewis, subsequently put in his penn'orth after Green had publicly attacked by Quick. In the circumstances, and with the knowledge I had, I'm not sure I wouldn't have done the same.
I'm not sure if Quick is still continuing with his threatened action against Green for the "defamatory comments", but if he is, I would assess that he is confident that no-one will find evidence of any involvement in the initial leak, since this is probably the only weak point any defence could choose to pursue to justify the "defamatory comments". Be interesting to see...
I can't help but feel that "people in glass houses......". From reading of the history, Green's part in the original inquiry into leaks his department was receiving looks(to me) very grubby. I suspect Quick thought he would catch a big fish, but instead became tangled up in politics.
|
>> Come off it Brompt, he made a pass at a woman. Nothing we haven't all
>> done from time to time, sometimes successful, sometimes not. In either case the alleged offences
>> were to trivial to be worth more than a mention.
The woman he made a pass at was young enough to be his daughter and was (IIRC) daughter of family friends.
It makes a difference.
|
|
On reflection Bromp, you’re right.
|
>> The woman he made a pass at was young enough to be his daughter and
>> was (IIRC) daughter of family friends.
>>
>> It makes a difference.
What is the maximum acceptable age difference, do you think, and do you think it should be legislated? And if not, then what difference does it make?
|
|
As far as using work computers for personal use is concerned, "There but for the grace of God go I" must apply to most people in employment nowadays but hadn't Green heard of the Delete button?
|
>> As far as using work computers for personal use is concerned, "There but for the
>> grace of God go I" must apply to most people in employment nowadays but hadn't
>> Green heard of the Delete button?
>>
there is a huge difference between personal use such as internet / banking online etc with a work computer which many employers including mine will not object to, treating it as incidental to the day's work and using a work computer to access porn or anything else of that sort which, quite rightly is a dismissible offence, no nonsense.
Additionally, there is, anecdotaly, a bit of a culture of shared passwords etc in some places, including political circles, which is stupid in modern IT use
Last edited by: commerdriver on Fri 22 Dec 17 at 11:16
|
>> The woman he made a pass at was young enough to be his daughter and
>> was (IIRC) daughter of family friends.
>>
>> It makes a difference.
No it doesn't. She was an adult no matter what the age difference and many people in the entertainment business have lovers young enough to be there great grand daughters without anyone batting an eyelid. It didn't stop Mick Jagger getting a knighthood, for example.
Where do you draw the line at family friends, mates sister for example? He made a pass, she rejected it and that was that. Listening to many people interviewed in the media over the past week as many women as men think the whole thing is a fuss over nothing, the lying accepted. There is a national sense of guilt over past treatment of sexual assault victims by police and other institutions that is in danger of going too far and demonising anyone everyone who shows any sexual interest in someone outside a very narrow band of "Correct" potential partners.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 23 Dec 17 at 20:49
|
Very well said R o R.
Ian is 27 years younger than I am. It's out 10th wedding Anniversary today.
If we're going to start taking age into account then I presume some will have a problem with us?
It's getting ridiculous now.
Pat.
|
>> Ian is 27 years younger than I am. It's out 10th wedding Anniversary today.
That's great for both of, no issue whatever with age difference. Doing benefit advice at work couples with large age gaps (both ways) is something I see all the time.
Thinking about it some more age is only part of the problem in the Green/Maltby scenario. Making a pass at a much younger woman in a social scenario is one thing, though not without it's risks. Doing it when she's asking you, as a powerful senior politician, for advice on her political ambitions is something else.
It's all to easy for it to be perceived as a transactional request; sex in exchange for career advancement.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 24 Dec 17 at 09:33
|
>> It's all to easy for it to be perceived as a transactional request; sex in
>> exchange for career advancement.
And doing it because you fancy her and you want to see if she fancies you is is yet another thing. It does happen, you know.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 24 Dec 17 at 19:51
|
>> And doing it because you fancy her and you want to see if she fancies
>> you is is yet another thing. It does happen, you know.
I don't deny it happens. Just that on balance of probability I don't think it was case here. And there's plenty of evidence that for a young woman in Westminster being propositioned like this (ie by older and more powerful men) is too frequent to be written off as 'a pass'.
|
>>
>>
>> I don't deny it happens. Just that on balance of probability I don't think it
>> was case here. And there's plenty of evidence that for a young woman in Westminster
>> being propositioned like this (ie by older and more powerful men) is too frequent to
>> be written off as 'a pass'.
>>
Women are propositioned by men every minute of the day (And vice versa). In the vest majority of cases the man is older than the woman in a relationship, and no matter what the alleged power imbalance might be provided no is taken for an answer when given and it does not persist to the discomfort of the woman involved their is no case to answer.
We're almost getting to the stage where a relationship is only deemed proper when it is preceeded by an exchange of solicitors letters and vetting by the social services.
|
>> Women are propositioned by men every minute of the day (And vice versa). In the
>> vest majority of cases the man is older than the woman in a relationship, and
>> no matter what the alleged power imbalance might be provided no is taken for an
>> answer when given and it does not persist to the discomfort of the woman involved
>> their is no case to answer.
You've got previous in here for excusing sex offenders and minimising the effect of their actions.
I'll leave the above to stand in the same vein.
|
>> You've got previous in here for excusing sex offenders and minimising the effect of their
>> actions.
>> I'll leave the above to stand in the same vein.
Damian Green is NOT a sex offender, and to suggest his actions made him so is stretching the envelope to a laughable degree.
And no I have not got "Previous for excusing sex offenders", just a different view of what constitutes a sex offence to you.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 27 Dec 17 at 01:43
|
When you say "you've got previous", I assume that some trendy, pseudo Sweeney-esque phrase meaning that somebody has done the same before? No chance you could go for something a little less grating?
RO'R said
"Women are propositioned by men every minute of the day (And vice versa). In the vest majority of cases the man is older than the woman in a relationship, and no matter what the alleged power imbalance might be provided no is taken for an answer when given and it does not persist to the discomfort of the woman involved their is no case to answer."
For the life of me I cannot see what is wrong with that paragraph. Have you never been propositioned? Have you never propositioned another? I'd assume so. Was that proposition not a leap in faith?
I propositioned a woman *much* younger than me, it was in the workplace, she worked for someone who worked for someone who worked for someone who worked for someone who reported to me.
We've been married a long time and have lovely children together.
So was that right or wrong? Because I'd only got a hope for what she'd say, and I've been wrong about pretty much everything else she'd say since.
But if she'd declined, it would have ended there and I would have accepted her decision. Despite the fact that never mind her own job, I could have closed or kept open her entire country operation if I chose without really needing to justifying it to anybody, and she knew that was why I'd been sent.
What, exactly, is wrong with that?
I'd guess you're back to "sniffing" again.
Men and women, and other combinations, interact. At times we find each other attractive. At times that's at work. I can see no harm as long as it is genuine and there are no inappropriate implications.
p.s. As it happens, I can't remember Mr. O'Reliant ever excusing sex offenders. Perhaps you mean that he has a habit of pointing out the utter ridiculousness or your position at times?
|
"...sex in exchange for career advancement."
...and I'd assumed you'd made it on sheer unadulterated ability. You live and learn
LOL
|
|
All elected politicians lie - firstly to get elected, secondly to remain in office and thirdly, because it's in their nature.
|
>>All elected politicians lie - firstly to get elected,<<
Pedant mode...surely a contradiction of terms there?
Pat
|
|
As a pedant, that's very pedantic. Well done:)
|
I'm usually too polite to point it out but as everyone else seems to be in Bah Humbug mode, I thought I'd join them too:)
Pat
|
When I made this post I was actually interested in the political effect of the resignation of the main supporter of Theresa May and how it would affect her strategy for the ongoing negotiations or even lead to a change in leadership.
Obvioulsy no one else is
|
|
Well, given as the whole debacle has been pretty random I would suggest "not much"
|
I'm not so sure. May has few real supporters and is still there as leader basically because no one else want the job. The latest fudge has bought her a bit more time but the infighting is surely going to break out again fairly shortly. Damian Green was in fact a major source of moderation between the two sides, more so that Theresa May and I can see here being forced to quit.
Indeed I think she will be happy to go. She is looking very tired and her ongoing illness is not helping.
|
I'm no supporter of Teresa may but I have to disagree.
I think she will feel she has let everyone down if she has to go because of her illness and I do think all the speculation about that in the media is more wishful thinking tham anything.
She has coped with it for a long time and led a full an successful career, no reason to pin point it now surely?
She set out to deal with Brexit and more than anything she wants to see it through.
I think she's the vest person to do this,
Pat
|
|
I rather think events are going to overtake here whatever her wishes. The leave wing of the party will stage some sort of challenge in the new year. They fear being swept along in some sort of Norwegian type arrangement which is where we are heading.
|
But if I were in her shoes I would rather be replaced because of that than a failing of my body parts.
I can fully understand that and I do wonder if the speculation about her heath would have been so prominent if she had been a male.
Pat
|
|
I think I've missed it, (or forgotten) what is it that's wrong with her health?
|
Good diabetes - insulin dependent.
Not the Bad diabetes that fat lazy people get...
Reminds me of...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3xUjw2BCYE
|
....and there really are people out there who believe that!
Pat
|
>> Good diabetes - insulin dependent.
>>
>> Not the Bad diabetes that fat lazy people get...
>>
Is that opinion or irony?
|
>>Is that opinion or irony?
Probably
|
>> I think I've missed it, (or forgotten) what is it that's wrong with her health?
>>
She is female, must be the menopause.
|
There has been very little press speculation about Theresa May’s health. I can’t remember seeing any recently although she does not look a well woman.
There has on the other hand been an enormous amount of speculation about Donald Trump who is, I believe, male.
|
>>Donald Trump who is, I believe, male<<
You're not sure?
Pat
|
>> You're not sure?
>>
...I'm not even sure he's human......
|
>> There has been very little press speculation about Theresa May’s health. I can’t remember seeing
>> any recently although she does not look a well woman.
>>
I was thinking the same.
|
There are four points here:
While pornography might not be to everyones taste the porn in question was apparently quite legal.
The policemen in question quite wrongly attempted to discredit a government minister by disclosing the details of the porn being found although no offence had been committed.
In this day and age there is nothing wrong with a man making a pass at a woman, all she needed to do was reject him, there was absolutely no reason for her to go public.
Aside from all of the above it seems that Damian Green was not completely truthful when asked about the porn being found on his computer, despite it being quite legal, and that is why he was asked to resign.
|
Senior politicians (or anyone in public service for that matter) downloading porn onto a work computer isn't something I'd consider wholesome in all in my opinion. At the very least it's a security risk. The porn in question was "legal" then and isn't now tells you something about its nature...
The fact that this man lied to cover his tracks tells you something more about his integrity - can't we expect integrity in politics ?
I think that Brian Paddick nails it
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/22/damian-green-case-former-police-officers-public-interest-brian-paddick
|
>>the porn in question was apparently quite legal.
I wonder how the line can be drawn between legal and illegal porn. For that matter, what is and what is not porn? The legal All 4 TV show "Naked Attraction" looks like porn to me and I don't like to think that my very young grandchildren can download and watch it.
|
No big deal he was watching a bit of porn.He looks the kind who needs it,maybe he didn't want his wife to know.Damian what a name to have.>:)
He be a consultant soon following Cameron.
|
|
She's either lied or was ignorant of what was going on. Either option shows her the door really.
|
Somehow I missed this whole argument. What actually is the problem?
That they have forced return targets or that she lied about them? I thought people wanted illegal immigrants removed?
I realise that I am missing something.
|
>> I realise that I am missing something.
No, not really, its very simple. A large proportion of the populous want illegal immigrants (well any immigrants really) removed from the country, a position hyped up by the gutter, right wing, and redtop press. So when a government department goes about trying to achieve that by having performance targets, the gutter, right wing, and redtop press then go into overdrive about the inhuman unfairness of it all. Only this is also echoed by the left wing press because its a right wing government.
All perfectly logical. I think
|
|
Ah, so this is like a couple of years ago when the cry to export illegal immigrants was suspended long enough for a petition to prevent the removal of any illegal immigrants who had auditioned on X- Factor?
|
>> Ah, so this is like a couple of years ago when the cry to export
>> illegal immigrants was suspended long enough for a petition to prevent the removal of any
>> illegal immigrants who had auditioned on X- Factor?
Except that people treated as illegal immigrants were people here legally for 40+ years but who could not prove it and no more thought they'd need to than you or I do.
You know how it is when targets are set (or are believed to be set) - what gets counted gets done and low hanging fruit get picked first.
Rudd's offences are two fold:
Firstly a Guardian Reporter, Amelia Gentleman, has been publicising cases of people who came from Caribbean legally before restrictions. Because they'd never thought they'd need to, never had passports etc to prove their status. No proof of right to work/reside = loss of job and access to healthcare and benefits. Home Office response until last week was standard text about govt's aspiration to remove 'illegals' and need to take (unaffordable) legal advice etc.
Secondly Rudd, when asked about targets, denied their existence. Shown that was wrong she then tried to say they were only there because managers (by implication unofficially) set them for purpose of performance management. Now it seems there were formal targets and she knew of them.
|
|
Thirdly, Rudd has oddly large hands for a woman.
|
>>.... Secondly Rudd, when asked about targets, denied their existence. Shown that was wrong she then
>> tried to say they were only there because managers (by implication unofficially) set them for
>> purpose of performance management. Now it seems there were formal targets and she knew of
>> them.
>>
.....going back to the question raised in the thread title, this latter (being "economique avec la vérité") does, IMO, make her considerably more vulnerable.
The Government could better stomach her falling on her sword for this, than for the wider implications of the Windrush and immigration policy disaster, much of which maps directly back to the PM (when Home Secretary).
|
The system works like this. Questions get asked of a minister, Minister is reliant on the civil service to provide answer, especially on historical items prior to term of minister.
CS provided wrong answers to Minister, they are to blame.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 27 Apr 18 at 21:18
|
|
...until, with the aid of a leak or whistleblower, plausible deniability turns into implausible deniability......
|
Did she read everything that comes through the department?
No, not possible
Did she ask her department about targets when asked?
Yes
Did they supply all the correct and relevant answers when first asked? days ago?
clearly not,
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 27 Apr 18 at 22:12
|
>> Did she ask her department about targets when asked?
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>
>> Did they supply all the correct and relevant answers when first asked? days ago?
>>
>> clearly not,
Or they told her but she's an arrogant know it all and thought she could cope.....
|
>> CS provided wrong answers to Minister, they are to blame.
CS will provide her with a comprehensive brief, list of anticipated questions with lines to take and perhaps opportunity to rehearse.
If she ignores brief, goes off piste and/or chooses to 'wing' it guessing stuff instead of saying she'll get back then she is to blame.
I know this happens.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 27 Apr 18 at 22:11
|
She is at the very least careless.
Were I in her position then irrespective of any scandal I would have asked my staff what actions were being taken just in case I was asked.
If I was then asked I would make sure I was updated.
She would appear to be a liar, irresponsible or incompetent. Or "politician" for short.
|
>>
>>
>> She would appear to be a liar, irresponsible or incompetent. Or "politician" for short.
>>
Or perhaps just a normal human being like the rest of us.
|
>> She would appear to be a liar, irresponsible or incompetent. Or "politician" for short.
>Or perhaps just a normal human being like the rest of us.
Speak for yourself.
In any case, she is a human being who wants to be a politician and is prepared to do what it takes to be one.
|
...as the saying goes, two things that need changing often are nappies and politicians, and both for exactly the same reason.......
;-)
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Sat 28 Apr 18 at 17:43
|
The difference between a politician and a trampoline?
You should always take your boots off before jumping on a trampoline.
More seriously though, we get the politicians we deserve. They do what they think will get them elected, not what would be right. And mostly they get elected, so I guess they judge us well.
|
|
The electorate are very poor at electing the right person for the right reasons.
|
|
How would you ascertain who is the right person then?
|
>> How would you ascertain who is the right person then?
No-one who competes for the role for sure. The last people you want to elect are those who desire to be elected.
|
So how would you choose someone who does not want to be elected and perhaps more importantly how could you get them to do a job in which they have no interest?
Would you choose a CEO, a doctor, accountant or plumber on the same basis? I.e someone who had no interest in the job on offer.
|
>>So how would you choose someone who does not want to be elected and perhaps more importantly how could you get them to do a job in which they have no interest?
Think broader. You cannot leave the job just the same and insist that someone who doesn't want to do it take it on and vice versa. You have to make it appeal to different people.
At the moment the incentive to be a politician attracts the people that, for the purpose of this discussion, we consider to be the wrong ones
So what attracts them and how far can we remove those attractions? For example, let us assume it is being on television quiz shows. So we bring in a rule that says politicians may not appear on TV quiz shows.
At the moment the people we consider to the the "right" ones are not attracted. So what can we add to the job to make it attractive to them? For example, perhaps it would be paying less tax on all their earnings. So we bring in an income tax discount for politicians.
Dumb examples I admit, but that is how you would need to do it.
|
OK but by definition once you make the job attractive to another group they become people who want the job of politician and therefore undesirable under the original premise.
The big problem is defining the sort of person you want to be an MP and who does the defining. Do we ask the electorate or does someone do it on their behalf, if so whom?
When you think about it the only practical solution is that anyone may stand for election. Not ideal but the only option really
|
|
The right person to be prime minister probably doesn't want the job.
|
>> The right person to be prime minister probably doesn't want the job.
>>
...you're quite correct......
......I don't.
;-)
|
Perhaps it should be like jury service.
There might need to be a filter to reject those without the necessary thinking ability.
There must be a better method than democracy despite the fact that, and because, I agree with WSC.
|
|
If you can describe such a system that is achievable then I would be interested to hear it.
|
|
Perhaps bring back the idea of people's peers? Remember that one, what was it 15 years ago?
|
|
To be properly random it needs to be hereditary. :)
|
|
Nah no one would have such a system ;)
|
>> There might need to be a filter to reject those without the necessary thinking ability.
If you listen to former politicians when they are interviewed most come across as intelligent and highly aware people who are more than capable of doing very difficult jobs. When in office they can appear exactly the opposite because they are rarely allowed to say and do what they think is right. They are constrained by the party machine and expected to be part of a united front, supporting policies they often don't agree with and may even think are plain wrong. They could speak out of course, but that means sacked from whatever post they hold and possibly deselected before the next election, so any backroom influence they have to try and change policy will go too. Plus of course their income. And any party which is riddled with dissenting voices on their own front benches will not be elected by us anyway as they will be torn apart by the press and the opposition.
Brexit is a fine example. Jeremy Corbyn has been a life long anti EU advocate, but now he is trapped by office and dare not publicly commit to wanting out because most of his MPs and nearly all who voted for him in the leadership election are pro EU. To publicly voice his own beliefs would be political suicide. Many more examples can be found in both main parties, the PM being a case in point as she voted to remain. The idea that the rest of us or some super band of intelligent people who have never bothered to stand for election would somehow be better is just fantasy thinking.
So unless someone comes up with a better system of government we are stuck with what we've got, and it would make no difference if Car4play or any other group was elected to office, we'd all be exactly the same.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 30 Apr 18 at 01:38
|
>> How much longer can Amber Rudd survive?
She's gone.
|
|
Couldn't believe what I read earlier, which was that one of the loudest voices calling for her to resign was Diana Abbott. You couldn't madly it up sometimes.
|
|
I think it's good timing for an election with final Brexit negotiations still on going. :-(
|
|
I'd think it's just about the worst time for an election if we want BREXIT to go through.
|
|
Agreed an election now would be the last thing we need.
|
>> I'd think it's just about the worst time for an election if we want BREXIT
>> to go through.
If we want the current uncertainty resolved and the best outcome I think that must be right.
The threat to May is as much from the 'ultras' in her own party opposed to a customs union as from her own role in 'Windrushgate'.
|
>> Couldn't believe what I read earlier, which was that one of the loudest voices calling
>> for her to resign was Diana Abbott. You couldn't madly it up sometimes.
Diane Abbott is the Shadow Home Secretary. If she wasn't pursuing this issue vigorously you'd quite rightly be saying she was derelict.
|
> Diane Abbott is the Shadow Home Secretary. If she wasn't pursuing this issue vigorously you'd
>> quite rightly be saying she was derelict.
>>
I think he's trying to say she's incompetent, she's perhaps not someone who should be throwing stones.
|
>> I think he's trying to say she's incompetent, she's perhaps not someone who should be
>> throwing stones.
I'm no fan off Ms Abbott and, albeit she was ill at time, she made a horlicks of her role in last year's GE.
On this matter though, pursuing a minister who'd put herself into an untenable position, I think she's looked pretty much on the button.
|
> On this matter though, pursuing a minister who'd put herself into an untenable position, I
>> think she's looked pretty much on the button.
>>
I suppose what they say about a stopped clock is true ;-)
|
|
She's Gone. Lets put Boris in her place.
|
>> Diane Abbott is the Shadow Home Secretary.
I knew she was the shadow something - of her former self perhaps?
|
|
This government reminds me of the John Major era, so if history repeats itself we could have three terms of Jeremy Corbyn.
|
>> This government reminds me of the John Major era, so if history repeats itself we
>> could have three terms of Jeremy Corbyn.
>>
The difference is that Tony Blair, like him or not, was a competent politician surrounded by a small tight team with a competent chancellor and a very capable organisation including Alistair Campbell.
Jeremy has Diane Abbot
Among front line politicians of all parties I can think of about 3 that might qualify as competent.
|
Government at least seems to be doing right thing for Windrush folks.
But there's now another cohort of 'hostile environment' victims emerging; skilled migrants from the Indian Sub-Continent. Seems that if you or your accountant make minor errors in your tax return or the Home Office don't understand your tax or books your cards get marked:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/06/at-least-1000-highly-skilled-migrants-wrongly-face-deportation-experts-reveal
|
>> Government at least seems to be doing right thing for Windrush folks.
I fail to see why it is unreasonable to expect someone who chooses to move to another country to take steps to regularise their legal status in that country.
|
>> I fail to see why it is unreasonable to expect someone who chooses to move
>> to another country to take steps to regularise their legal status in that country.
The people we're referring to as Windrush Generation arrived before 1973 and were mostly minors travelling on their parents' passports. They were educated here, worked here and paid taxes here. They regarded themselves as British.
Fifty years later they're suddenly expected to 'regularise' their position by reference to data they've no hope of producing.
|
>>
>> Fifty years later they're suddenly expected to 'regularise' their position by reference to data they've
>> no hope of producing.
>>
That's the stupidity of the situation. The state already has the proof they have been hounding these people to provide. Income tax, national insurance, council tax, local authority school records.
|
>>were mostly minors
Mostly? So are we ok to deport the others?
Look, this country has got its panties in a knot over immigration and constantly spouts about how it wants them removed. And don't give me that old b******* about "we only hate illegal immigration" because that's just s***e. Immigrants are abused in the street, and nobody checks their status first.
But then everybody whines as soon as it happens.
Who should be removed?
All immigrants?
All illegal immigrants?
All illegal immigrants except those who appear on X-Factor or who have a sob story?
All illegal immigrants except those that have paid taxes and attended school here?
etc. etc.
For me, so that it is quite clear, I believe there should be no such thing as restricted migration, anybody should be entitled to live anywhere. There should be just two rules;
1) Break the law and you're out. No exceptions.
2) You are not permitted to gain from any state that you have not contributed to somehow.
We'd do far better to get off this anti immigrant bandwagon and simply address all criminals, idle-wasters and scroungers, whatever their nationality.
|
@NoFM2R
I agree with your general approach although 'break the law and your out' will create hard cases. See the skilled migrants I referenced above who made mistakes on their tax returns, have they broken the law? The Home Office seems to think they have but HMRC haven't even charged them interest/penalties.
The reference to Windrush and minors isn't about merit but about documentation. Somebody who arrived aged 5 travelling on their Mother's passport, as was practice at time, has an additional documentation problem compared to an adult with their own passport showing entry stamps.
|
Let us say convicted in court of something above a defined threshold. (let's also try to use you're and your correctly, like they did in days of yore).
I have never heard anybody say "illegal immigrants should be removed unless they have a good reason for being illegal". Perhaps that's how it should be, but I haven't heard that sentiment.
But that is a miserable fact of law; it hurts some people unjustly in the course of enforcing society's chosen standards.
If one doesn't like the ramifications, then one shouldn't have the law. Or at least, not written that way.
You can't have the law and enforce it selectively, however good your motivation, because that way there be dragons.
Perhaps what the State needs do is assess them under current visa application law - they'd probably all pass anyway.
|
I have never heard anybody say "illegal immigrants should be removed unless they have a
>> good reason for being illegal". Perhaps that's how it should be, but I haven't heard
>> that sentiment.
isn't that, pretty much, political asylum?
|
|
I said "reason for being illegal", surely political asylum is a reason they would not be illegal?
|
>> I said "reason for being illegal", surely political asylum is a reason they would not
>> be illegal?
Entirely depends if their claim (and the subsequent constant appeals) is fatuous or not.
|
|
Then they wouldn't be granted political asylum. Surely you understand my point?
|
>> Then they wouldn't be granted political asylum. Surely you understand my point?
Its a long process. And many in fact most claims are fatuous. It could be said that ANY claim for asylum from anyone who enters the uk from Europe is fatuous. Fraudulent even, so worthy of deportation.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 9 May 18 at 21:10
|
>> >> Surely you understand my point?
I guess not.
|
>> >> >> Surely you understand my point?
>>
>> I guess not.
Maybe it isnt a point.
|
>> Let us say convicted in court of something above a defined threshold. (let's also try
>> to use you're and your correctly, like they did in days of yore).
As I've said before I know the your/you're/yore stuff fine well; my issue is slack typing and non existent proof reading.
|
>> Government at least seems to be doing right thing for Windrush folks.
As here:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/10/its-destroyed-my-life-windrush-victim-recognised-as-legal-citizen-after-13-years
How many more Hubert Howards are there out there?
|
Is Esther McVey next to walk the plank? Like Rudd she appears to either a liar or incompetent.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/05/esther-mcvey-refuses-to-widen-apology-over-claim-she-misled-mps
The open letter from the head of National Audit Office is surely without precedent both in fact that it was sent and the tone and content:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/04/amyas-morse-auditor-general-universal-credit-letter-esther-mcvey
|
|
I can't believe that someone making a statement like that is a liar...so only leaves one option
|
|
Politicians are schooled in, and spend most of their career lying to the people who voted them in, why the hell do they get upset when they lie to one another?
|
Speculation today that McVey might be about to go.
Issue though his Brexit and not the pack of lies about Universal Credit she was telling in radio interviews yesterday.
|
Too much brexit or not enough?
I only saw the bit about her saying there will be losers in this benefit shake up.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 12 Oct 18 at 10:51
|
>> Too much brexit or not enough?
Not enough; refused to back Chequers. Rumour is that she, Andrea Leadsom and Penny Mordaunt are thinking of jumping.
>> I only saw the bit about her saying there will be losers in this benefit
>> shake up.
Getting that admission was like pulling teeth. The bit that got me was the constant repetition about some of reductions being due to benefits being replaced by wages. That may be true, some people in work are better off on UC. Others, including those currently getting Child Credit, are losers. The straw that broke Iain Duncan Smith's back was Osborne cutting some of the incentives that ensured work always paid.
A big loser cohort are those living alone, getting PIP for daily living (ie have substantial care needs) and for whom nobody gets Carer's Allowance. They currently get a 'Severe Disability Premium worth over £60 a week. They will be hundreds of pounds a month worse off on transfer to new regime as there's no equivalent in UC. She's promised, after being dragged through the courts, some transitional protection. Her words to the House making that promise carried the clear implication they would be no worse off. When the regulations were published it became apparent that a lot of them would be.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 12 Oct 18 at 11:28
|
Surely it's game over for Karen Bradley?
The idea that every killing by the security forces in NI were not crimes and were 'dignified' and 'orderly' shows a utter ignorance (or denial) of fact. Never mind that she should be aware of how her comments will be seen by the Nationalist community.
Her position is surely untenable.
Amber Rudd's use of 'coloured' OTOH was a slip, she's apologised and that should be end of matter.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 8 Mar 19 at 07:43
|
Her position is probably untenable because of the baying for blood going on.
But for goodness sakes, the age of taking offence is getting ridiculous.
Of course her comment was wrong, but it was fairly clear what she meant. She spoke without thinking and then continued to dig herself a hole. But now the emotive comments are pouring out from those who have suddenly seen an opportunity to be traumatised.
The media will never let it go; 10 years from now any story involving her will be reported as "Karen Bradley, who once said...."
It's all too ridiculous for words.
As for the Amber Rudd comment, worse. Way to pick out one word and ignore the message. How delicate can people be that they can ignore someone supportive of their position and the challenges they face and pick on one word.
How much longer will this sensitivity and offence taking be tolerated?
|
>> But for goodness sakes, the age of taking offence is getting ridiculous.
The generality of that and where line is drawn is an interesting debate. Offence at Amber Rudd's 'miss-speak' is a case in point.
Although the armed conflict has stopped The Troubles have not gone away; there are still two camps each isolated from the other. I was on a course on Tuesday about Universal Credit. The trainer regularly visits NI as part of his work and was describing how streets still have to be closed at night and there are many places that are 'no go' areas for one side or the other.
Bloody Sunday and several other events as well as security force collaboration with Loyalist Paramilitaries are still real sores. It took 40 years for the UK government to admit the entirety of what happened on 30th January 1972.
OK, it was presumably a case of 'down the hole and still digging' but that won't wash with Nationalists who will see it as confirmation of the real views of the British government.
Baroness O'Loan is hardly part of the professionally offended cohort; her words ring true.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 9 Mar 19 at 20:43
|
But on your main point, the sensitivity is ridiculous.
Just how delicate must these people be if they are genuinely offended by such comments? But the truth is that they are not. They are virtue signallers and people seeking excuses for outrage.
|
>> But on your main point, the sensitivity is ridiculous.
I think your failing to understand the nature of NI politics and the grip perceived historic wrongs or wins have on both sides. The Loyalists dress up in bowler hats and sashes every July to commemorate the 329 year old 'victory' which was in a way where it all started.
Or to quote Flanders and Swan:
They blow up policemen, or so I have heard
And blame it on Cromwell and William the Third
|
Failing to understand nothing. I have lived in both North and South.
|
>> Failing to understand nothing. I have lived in both North and South.
OK, another of those instances where you and I see things through different prisms.
That's life. No sweat.
|
Agreed.
But these people need to move on. Living in the South is a pretty pleasant experience. But the bitter sensitivity of life in the North is ridiculous and full of people who desperately seek offence.as some kind of self justification.
|
Although the armed conflict has stopped The Troubles have not gone away; there are still
>> two camps each isolated from the other. I was on a course on Tuesday about
>> Universal Credit. The trainer regularly visits NI as part of his work and was describing
>> how streets still have to be closed at night and there are many places that
>> are 'no go' areas for one side or the other.
I was watching a show on BBC about NI, the reporter said there were more miles of walls in Belfast than berlin during the cold war. I don't know if it's true i can well believe it.
I sometimes wonder if we could drop certain parts of NI in the middle east. I think some of them would be more at home, it's less than an hours flight but still a very different place from the rest of the uk. May as well be on another planet at times.
|
No wonder there is a recruitment crisis in the Armed Forces.
As far as offence taking is concerned, it will get worse until no one can express an opinion.
Was Orwell ever so right?
The Thought Police really are here.
|
|
I don't think Karen Bradley should be sacked for her latest comment. However I do think she should be sacked, primarily because she is stupid and ignorant. When she was appointed to her current post she didn't even know the difference between unionists and nationalists - and she's the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?? She went to one of the best universities in thew world but apparently remained woefully ignorant of even the most basic characteristics of a part of the United Kingdom for which she is an elected representative.
|
>> I don't think Karen Bradley should be sacked for her latest comment.
I think the latest comment comes under same heading as first. Even if it was a miss-speak it's so serious and so undermining of her credibility with the Nationalist community that she should go.
|
|
The sooner Northern Ireland is re-united with the South the better.
|
>> The sooner Northern Ireland is re-united with the South the better.
Good luck with that.
|
>> The sooner Northern Ireland is re-united with the South the better.
>>
....or vice versa? ;-)
|
|
She's quite possibly speaking to the unionist side and many in her own party, especially with several ex-service personnel waiting on a decision to see if they'll be prosecuted in an atmosphere that many feel is one sided.
|
>> She's quite possibly speaking to the unionist side and many in her own party
That would be another tick in the stupid box.........
|
>> >> She's quite possibly speaking to the unionist side and many in her own party
>>
>> That would be another tick in the stupid box.........
She's probably a way to go before she can say one thing and mean something else entirely.
|
Time for Bradley to return NI to direct rule.
2 years with no functioning assembly and civil servants ticking over the nation.
Imagine a first world nation incapable of doing anything for 2 years because of a political deadlock?
Hahahahahahaha.
|
>> Time for Bradley to return NI to direct rule.
>>
>> 2 years with no functioning assembly and civil servants ticking over the nation.
Just goes to show that we don't actually need politicians
|
>> She's probably a way to go before she can say one thing and mean something
>> else entirely.
It's a technique most Cabinet Ministers pick up pretty quickly - another tick in the stupid box :-).
|
It's a technique most Cabinet Ministers pick up pretty quickly - another tick in the
>> stupid box :-).
>>
And some need a bit of OJT.
|
|
The trouble is, OJT for a politician in the UK at this time doesn't teach them anything we really want them to know.
|
Having spent two periods of three weeks (2017 and 2106, for Xmas ) not far from Belfast, I felt vaguely uncomfortable when venturing out, despite being treated with the utmost civility by people I met.
Armed guards on the base gate, and the threat level set at "high" was unsettling.
|
|
I cam assure you, your Brexit is not going to improve that one jot.
|
|
Our very own MP, Chris Heaton-Harris has resigned as junior Brexit Minister over delay to Brexit. Wants to spend more time on his constituents.
|
|
The defence secretary has been fired over the huawai leak.
|
|
Leaked in the national interest I wonder ? May's off her rocker.
|
|
Maybe it or isn't, but either way if he felt that strong he should have resigned.
|
Absolutely. He took the job, and if he feels he can no longer do the job, then he should leave it. If he really feels the information should be public, then he should at least share it openly.
To try to leak it and to do so secretly is appalling.
Assume he did it, of course. He is denying it and May is not sharing the "compelling evidence".
That woman is becoming a concern. The sooner she is gone the better.
|
> Assume he did it, of course. He is denying it and May is not sharing
>> the "compelling evidence".
>>
It would seem he very much denies it, strenuously so. The reason he refused to resign was he believes none of his advisors and he believes its a result of a previous fall out with mark sedwell.
|
>> It would seem he very much denies it, strenuously so. The reason he refused to
>> resign was he believes none of his advisors and he believes its a result of
>> a previous fall out with mark sedwell.
In words that chime with my Cultural Reference thread...
Well he would say that, wouldn't he?
|
>> Well he would say that, wouldn't he?
>>
It’s a funny old world when you have to decide whether it’s the Prime Minister or the Defence Secretary who is lying.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 1 May 19 at 20:11
|
>> >> It would seem he very much denies it, strenuously so.
>>
>> In words that chime with my Cultural Reference thread...
>>
>> Well he would say that, wouldn't he?
>>
Inevitably so.
If he says "I did it" then 100% of people believe he did it.
Newspapers can talk about it freely.
If he says "I didn't do it" then however many people believe he did it, it won't be 100%.
Newspapers who come out and say he did it run the risk of being sued so will mention it less or at least be careful.
Where on Earth would be the logic in admitting it in a witch-hunting environment..
|
>>
>> Where on Earth would be the logic in admitting it in a witch-hunting environment..
>>
>>
I suppose we could be looking for honesty and integrity but I suppose that would be silly.
|
Naive, certainly.
All that happens if a politician is honest is that the media can attack with impunity.
|
>> Where on Earth would be the logic in admitting it in a witch-hunting environment..
>>
Possibly but quite often members of cabinet when backed into a corner resign. Pretty rare to be sacked.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 2 May 19 at 02:03
|
>Possibly but quite often members of cabinet when backed into a corner resign. Pretty rare to be sacked.
He's not backing down. In his reply to No. !0's statement he says that he refused the offer to resign because that would have been to accept that I, my civil servants, my military advisers or my staff were responsible: this was not the case.
Ball now firmly in May's court and it's her who is in a corner because she won't have the bottle to back up her actions with a prosecution.
Chinese equipment and components are definitely a security risk but even US suppliers use Chinese fabbed chips.
|
>>Ball now firmly in May's court and it's her who is in a corner because she won't have the bottle to back up her actions with a prosecution.
I agree. She will back down.
At best I would guess she has some he said / she said statements, I'd be almost positive she has no "overwhelming evidence". Or any "evidence" at all, beyond reports and accusations..
There#ll be some kind of compensation, financial or otherwise, coming down the line.
|
>> In words that chime with my Cultural Reference thread...
>>
>> Well he would say that, wouldn't he?
>>
In all honesty, in the political atmosphere now god knows.
|
|
Been out this evening but I thought I read that there was other stuff under his purview that TM wasn't happy with, that came out in the inquiry.
|
>> Been out this evening but I thought I read that there was other stuff under
>> his purview that TM wasn't happy with, that came out in the inquiry.
>>
Did it say what other stuff?
|
Not as far as I recall, I only read it quickly and I can't find the Beeb article I thought I saw it in(so maybe they were just making it up, or maybe I am!)
I see TMs letter said
"I am therefore concerned by the manner in which you have engaged with this investigation.
"It has been conducted fairly, with the full co-operation of other NSC attendees.
"They have all answered questions, engaged properly, provided as much information as possible to assist with the investigation, and encouraged their staff to do the same. Your conduct has not been of the same standard as others."
So it sounds like he may not have been as cooperative as he could have been. He apparently also did meet someone from the Telegraph, which is where the leak occurred. Sounds entirely feasible that someone has put one and one equal something other than two!
|
|
I noticed he said "I swear on my children's lives". Whenever I've heard someone say that (usually the lower educated classes) they always turn out to be lying.
|
The "lower educated classes" ?
Ah I see what you mean. State school and non Oxbridge university. Some sort of bounder that has infiltrated the establishment. Comes from one of those Northern places where they all speak funny. Probably uses fish knives.
|
|
Yes those Cambridge types always trustworthy with the nation's secrets.
|
>> The "lower educated classes" ?
>>
>> Ah I see what you mean. State school and non Oxbridge university. Some sort of
>> bounder that has infiltrated the establishment. Comes from one of those Northern places where they
>> all speak funny. Probably uses fish knives.
And holds his cutlery like a pen.
|
>>I noticed he said "I swear on my children's lives".
Possibility 1) He's a plank and hasn't thought it through if he's proven to be guilty
Possibility 2) He's innocent. (at least of leaking this information).
I think I tend towards 2).
I also notice that despite what the media say, he was NOT sacked for leaking information. He was let go because he had "lost the Primeminister's confidence".
If ever there was an indication that the "overwhelming evidence" doesn't exist, that would be it.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 2 May 19 at 18:19
|
I also now read that she now says that she considers the matter closed and that there is no need to refer it to the Police.
I expect she is hoping that it does not get referred because she is likely to come out of any investigation looking very foolish.
|
>I also now read that she now says that she considers the matter closed and that there is no need to
>refer it to the Police.
I don't think this is going to go away as easily as she hopes if Williamson keeps insisting it wasn't him. She's in a hole and still digging furiously.
|
>> I noticed he said "I swear on my children's lives". Whenever I've heard someone say
>> that (usually the lower educated classes) they always turn out to be lying.
Regular cliche on police/law tv series. Heard it once or twice in my previous career, usually made me think 'you're probably not being honest'.
|
I've not met him however those that have, outside of tv interviews, say he does speak in a plain straight forward way. Some might well describe it as an enthusiastic school boy manner.
I wouldn't read too much into his choice of words.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 2 May 19 at 18:22
|
That's been going on for some time, late last year I think. From what I heard he managed to get the defence review removed from a wider security review as he felt if it were left in it would be little more than a hatchet job on the MoD's budget. He succeeded but made some enemies in doing so.
If this is a revenge job (and I don't know if it is ) they'd have better got their story straight.
|
I should think it was more taking advantage of an opportunity than a preconceived revenge job.
>>they'd have better got their story straight.
Theresa May? Not a chance.
|
>> I should think it was more taking advantage of an opportunity than a preconceived revenge
>> job.
Agreed.
>
>> >>they'd have better got their story straight.
>>
>> Theresa May? Not a chance.
>>
No I was thinking of others.
|
If it wasn't Williamson then it puts a certain reporter in an interesting position.
Because if he now comes out and says it wasn't Williamson and was nothing to do with Williamson that'd make rather a good story, albeit perhaps risky to whoever actually did it.
If I was TM, I'd probably be hoping against hope that it was Williamson, because she could be right in the cack if not and it comes out. Her careful phrasing and use of "lost confidence" rather than "leaking b******" probably will not protect her.
|
Brush it under the carpet time
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48160004
Not a criminal matter say police
|
Resigns as Leader of House over approach to Brexit.
Mrs B and I were struggling to understand a tweet from Jess Phillips apparently approving Loathsome until we saw headlines and got context.
|
Welsh Secretary resigns:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/06/alun-cairns-welsh-secretary-resigns-from-cabinet-over-trial-allegations
Issue appears to be lack of accuracy/frankness in statements made about a prospective candidate in forthcoming elections for Sennedd.
|
|
He's regarded as a brown nosing grovelling little s*** by many in Wales. Now also a proven liar.
|
>> He's regarded as a brown nosing grovelling little s*** by many in Wales. Now also
>> a proven liar.
I think you'll find that "politician" is shorter to type.
|
>> He's regarded as a brown nosing grovelling little s*** by many in Wales. Now also
>> a proven liar.
Vox pop in his constituency doesn't augur well for him.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/06/alun-cairnss-constituency-cowbridge-remember-theres-a-victim-at-centre-of-this
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50369905
Labour's Keith Vaz, who was suspended from the Commons after he was found to have "expressed willingness" to purchase cocaine for others, will not be standing for re-election.
|
Much blood on floor after Cabinet Reshuffle.
Glad to see back of Leadsom and the loathsome McVey. Javid will now be a man on backbenches with a grudge.
And while Rishi Sunak has been favoured recently to be put in to bat on TV does his appointment suggest no heavyweight would take the job given circumstances of Javid's departure.
|
|
I'm surprised that the NI got binned, I thought he'd done a good job. Javid going was another surprise the rest not really. I think they were in the ERG, looks like he's having a clear out.
|
Puppets in the great offices of state are not acceptable, so I hope Rishi Sunak has a backbone. Having Cummings choosing his advisers is not a good start. A PM as a team leader has to please everybody. A chancellor as holder of the purse strings needs to be able to say no.
Raab and Patel don't enthuse me either.
|
>> Raab and Patel don't enthuse me either.
The oft forgotten great office is Justice. Buckland is at least a lawyer and hopefully has the understanding of his role vis-a- vis the Lord Chief Justice. That could be critical given threats to clip the Supreme Court's wings and/or try and oust Judicial Review in some areas.
|
The primary issue as I see it with our leader, is that he was not elected. Dominic Cummings, I mean.
And for as long as he is there, then far too much will be going on at the behest of a man that has no need of public popularity or support.
|
The Trump era is with us.
If you do not do what the great leader wants or it does not mater how well you have done, if there is any indication of other than total loyalty anywhere in your record then you are shown the door.
|
Can't claim originality, this is plagiarised from another forum but....:
So Suella Braverman is appointed Attorney General, presumably to provide company to that other intellectual giant Pritti Patel
|
Having never heard of Ms Braverman, I popped onto her Wikipedia not that long after the appointment was announced I was surprised to see that the start had already been updated to say
"Sue-Ellen Cassiana "Suella" Braverman (née Fernandes; born 3 April 1980) is a British politician serving as Attorney General since February 2020 "
The BBC announced her appointment in their live reporting at 14:57. Her Wikipedia page was last updated at 14:55.
I never managed to update my LinkedIn that fast!! I guess she might have had prior knowledge, or updated it from No. 10 pretty much as soon as she was told.
Anyway - she does have legal background incl some quite decent qualifications...
|
>> Anyway - she does have legal background incl some quite decent qualifications...
The Law Officers, as legal advisers are invariably lawyers. Suella looks a bit of a lightweight compared to predecessors.
First in my lifetime at least not to been QC except possibly for Lord Elwyn-Jones - but he'd been a judge.
|
So Suella Braverman is appointed Attorney General, presumably to provide company to that other intellectual
>> giant Pritti Patel
>>
How do they know how competent she is?
|
>> How do they know how competent she is?
The point was around her intellectual suitability compared with previous holders of what is, by any standard a heavyweight role. I think there are sufficient clues in her public pronouncements as a Brexit minster and her media appearances to worry those of us who regard the AJ's role as, in many respects, quasi judicial.
|
>> The point was around her intellectual suitability compared with previous holders of what is, by
>> any standard a heavyweight role. I think there are sufficient clues in her public pronouncements
>> as a Brexit minster and her media appearances to worry those of us who regard
>> the AJ's role as, in many respects, quasi judicial.
>>
Can't say I've followed her career at all, never heard of her before today. But seemed a bit harsh to judge her too soon, but if she's struggled before ? However I'm sure there's not a shortage of legal types in government to advise her.
|
To be fair Sooty, neither you nor I have heard of her but there will be many who have, and also who have a better knowledge of what is required in the role and therefore whether she is a good fit.
But I agree re advisers - I tend to think of many of the top MPs (Cabinet) as really just being mouthpieces and they have gofers to do the real grunt work. I suppose they also set the agenda (as far as Sir Humphrey allows!!).
|
>> To be fair Sooty, neither you nor I have heard of her but there will
>> be many who have, and also who have a better knowledge of what is required
>> in the role and therefore whether she is a good fit.
Yep, hence my question.
>> But I agree re advisers - I tend to think of many of the top
>> MPs (Cabinet) as really just being mouthpieces and they have gofers to do the real
>> grunt work. I suppose they also set the agenda (as far as Sir Humphrey allows!!).
There is a that, knowing who to listen to and when is something in itself. But I suppose we'll see how all these new ministers get on.
|
>> Can't say I've followed her career at all, never heard of her before today. But
>> seemed a bit harsh to judge her too soon, but if she's struggled before ?
>> However I'm sure there's not a shortage of legal types in government to advise her.
Let's just say I've observed her previously in both ministerial role and in media and I sincerely hope she rises above my expectations.
Right now she looks like one of Trump's appointments in the States and she'll either do her master's bidding or try to fulfil the role properly and crash/burn as soon as she veers off her plotted course. .
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 13 Feb 20 at 21:05
|
....I'd be more worried by the fact that (I think) Liz Truss is currently the longest continuous serving member of the Cabinet.....
:-O
|
> Let's just say I've observed her previously in both ministerial role and in media and
>> I sincerely hope she rises above my expectations.
>>
>>
Just watched her on twitter with a clip of her interview on ch4 news, I think you might well be right.
|
|
Can Gavin Williamson survive or is he headed for undignified exit #2?
|
|
...depends on whether he's being judged on his teacher's assessment....
|
|
Fairly poor on the face of it, especially with the Scottish exam system going through the same thing a week before. It was likely that they were to be the same issues here.
|
|
That reminds me, whatever happened to that Huawei leak investigation?
|
Well, somebody has cocked up badly. When you know more or less how they did it, it suggests either that they have lazily accepted a proposal from some technocrat at Offtest or whatever it's called, or left it to Cummings. No competent politician has been anywhere near it.
What they have done either implicitly or explicitly is to use teachers' grade forecasts, mock exam results, and any coursework marks to derive a grade. In doing so they have made adjustments directed at ending up with their own forecast grade distribution - a kind of calibration, which seems logical enough unless you want the average grade to go up by around 2 grades this year.
In deciding whose grades get reduced and by how much, they have considered the previous SATS results and school averages of each local cohort. So some entrants have had much bigger adjustments than others. The worse the school, the greater the chance that the arbitrary grade will be below what they are shooting for.
Looked at from the point of view of a student who has an offer based on grades that they know they have to work towards and achieve to take up the place, when they end up with grades that are both below the offer and significantly worse than forecast and or mock results, they are going to feel cheated - justly in my view.
You can't have a grade for a test result when there has been no test, and when the applicant has simply not had the opportunity to work for and achieve a higher grade.
The current row was totally predictable, and would have been foreseen by a competent team applying some thought.
Usual comment. The fish rots from the head, and we know who that is. If there was any justice, Williamson would go and his perfidious, decadent, oafish boss with him.
|
>> In deciding whose grades get reduced and by how much, they have considered the previous
>> SATS results and school averages of each local cohort. So some entrants have had much
>> bigger adjustments than others. The worse the school, the greater the chance that the arbitrary
>> grade will be below what they are shooting for.
>>
>> Looked at from the point of view of a student who has an offer based
>> on grades that they know they have to work towards and achieve to take up
>> the place, when they end up with grades that are both below the offer and
>> significantly worse than forecast and or mock results, they are going to feel cheated -
>> justly in my view.
Two local colleges. One a public school has had their best results ever. No surprise as they have class sizes of 8. Local state sixth form in a poor area which is obliged to take all levels of students and therefore has had historically mixed SATs has had its worst results ever. They maintain that their mock have proved to be accurate in predicting results previously achieved yet the whole cohort has been marked down with not one A grade awarded to the school when they normally achieve about 15%.
Last edited by: zippy on Tue 18 Aug 20 at 01:29
|
I seem to have offended somebody.
A bit thin-skinned, unless one of Johnson or Cummings is a member of our band.
I am ashamed of our government.
|
Lady Harding will be in charge of the revamped PHE I see.
She who led TalkTalk during a massive customer data breach.
She who has led test/trace since May.
The cronyism is worse than I recall 70s Labour!
|
>> The cronyism is worse than I recall 70s Labour!
Yes, I don't recall seeing the job advertised. Also a silly time to be scrapping a structure pretty involved in the current crisis.
I remember Wilson getting flak for his resignation honours list. Johnson will already have enobled all his friends by the time he resigns.
|
>> Yes, I don't recall seeing the job advertised. Also a silly time to be scrapping
>> a structure pretty involved in the current crisis.
Absolutely. Much effort and staff goodwill lost while people worry about their jobs etc.
|
. Also a silly time to be scrapping
>> a structure pretty involved in the current crisis.
>>
>
Probably not a bad time tbh, still early enough to have the momentum to change it to what you want but a lot of other bodies have stepped in to assist so it's not all on them. There seems to be a fair people number of people who that thought PHE have done pretty badly in all this.
I think I remarked at the time I wouldn't have been surprised to see phe go by the end of the year.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 18 Aug 20 at 09:43
|
Lady Harding is on the board of the Jockey Club.
The Jockey Club is like the union for horse racing jockeys.
Horse racing includes the Grand National at Aintree.
The Grand National is sponsored by Randox.
Randox were shoo'd in somewhat unexpectedly and at short notice and above other competition to provide Coronavirus test kits (which were subsequently recalled as they were sub-standard).
Small world innit :-)
|
She's also married to an MP (John Penrose) who is on the advisory committee of the 1828 think tank.
Which would like to see the NHS turned into an insurance-led service, and has previously lobbied for the disbanding of PHE.
Not sure they specifically asked for his wife to be in charge, but there ya go.
|
>> She's also married to an MP (John Penrose) who is on the advisory committee of
>> the 1828 think tank.
>>
>> Which would like to see the NHS turned into an insurance-led service, and has previously
>> lobbied for the disbanding of PHE.
At risk of diverting the conversation, my recent experience of an insurance-led service overseas when dealing with my father's health was pretty impressive. Despite being in a foreign country, with a foreign language and a system I am not used to, I was able to access a vast range of services at minimal if no cost, very rapidly and with a high level of diagnostic equipment. On top of that, the insurer has social workers and specialist nurses who visit the patient at home and provide a great deal of 24 hour accessible support which is very comforting.
New immigrants to the country are given a battery of tests (pretty much a whole of body MoT) at no cost as soon as they register with the family doctor. The only downside is that patients need to contribute to prescription costs as a proportion of the actual cost rather than a flat rate and I don't know if poorer people get additional help.
That is not to knock the NHS which has served me well, but then I have not really needed it. My children on the other hand have and especially in mental health, we have had to self-fund expensive treatment.
If the NHS was such a great system every country would have it; they don't.
|
>> If the NHS was such a great system every country would have it; they don't.
With the glaring exception of the USA universal health care is pretty much universal in advanced nations. Sure there are differing ways of funding but overall, given what we spend as a proportion of GDP, the NHS does pretty well.
Replacing it with a different model, aside from being nigh on impossible politically, would be a huge undertaking of organisation etc.
|
Interesting if somewhat lengthy read - efficiency seems to be key - Israel manage 4th (2013 study), UK 14th, and USA 46th of 48 countries studied.
2015 study placed Israel 7th, UK 10th, US 44th of 51 nations*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Israel#Health_insurance_framework
*
www.bloomberg.com/graphics/infographics/most-efficient-health-care-around-the-world.html
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 20 Aug 20 at 20:44
|
I didn't know that. Certainly if one is fluent in Hebrew the system works extremely well and using the online systems, Google translate means you are about 90% of the way there as a non-Hebrew speaker and many of the office staff also have enough English to help. I was about 95% efficient due to my basic Hebrew knowledge.
Nothing is perfect but if you can navigate the system, its pretty good.
|
>>
>> Usual comment. The fish rots from the head, and we know who that is. If
>> there was any justice, Williamson would go and his perfidious, decadent, oafish boss with him.
>>
There is a rumour that the performance of the "Test and Trace" system performance is so abysmal because most of its effort has been diverted in an attempt to find and trace Boris.
;-)
|
I see Grayling has resigned from the security committee after Boris's attempt to make him a shoe-in as chair failed.
More contemptible behaviour from govt which will be their eventual downfall I am sure.
I wonder where they'll try to parachute him into next, or if he'll scarper off to some directorship(s)
|
>> I wonder where they'll try to parachute him into next, or if he'll scarper off
>> to some directorship(s)
Would you want him as a director of your practice? It might be interesting to see who does.
|
He has access to 'movers and shakers'
Matters less that he's a fud.
|
From WIKI
Referring back to Grayling's previous track record as a minister, The Spectator reported colleagues as saying "only Grayling could lose a rigged election".
The Guardian commented that sources familiar with the matter had indicated he had
"gone off in a sulk" and had no desire to serve on the committee as an ordinary member.
|
>> I see Grayling has resigned from the security committee after Boris's attempt to make him
>> a shoe-in as chair failed.
>>
>> More contemptible behaviour from govt which will be their eventual downfall I am sure.
>>
>> I wonder where they'll try to parachute him into next, or if he'll scarper off
>> to some directorship(s)
Or he's resigned as part of a plan to replace him with somebody placed to challenge the elected chair?
|
Will be interesting to some extent.
Salmond is a consummate politician/speaker, and the focus is on procedure rather than him being a handsy drunkard (which he didn't deny in court).
Rule number one in my experience of managing disciplinary matters (which is not massive but more than most) is follow the procedural pathway and cut no corners.
|
I thought it was interesting that for some who is 'larger than life' AS hasn't given a single interview or press statement about anything for a year. I wonder how much of what has to say will be a case of keeping the powder dry?
I bet NS is nervous, although the whole thing might get turned into a he said /she said.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56198842
>>
>> Will Nicola Sturgeon be the next one to have to resign?
So after two inquiries we've got two conclusions. The independent investigator acquits her but the Parliamentary inquiry splits on party lines.
I think she'll survive.
Today's publication touches on a point that would trouble me if I were a party to all of this, or even perhaps a voter in Scotland.
How on earth did it get to 2018 before she had an inkling that he wasn't safe with lone women particularly after drink?
I've worked with blokes like that and every man and his dog knew; whether they cared was more mixed.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 23 Mar 21 at 14:15
|
>> How on earth did it get to 2018 before she had an inkling that he
>> wasn't safe with lone women particularly after drink?
I find that impossible to believe myself.
And of course one isn't allowed (Quite rightly) to speculate on the identities of those women he may have "Got a little fresh" with.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 24 Mar 21 at 03:09
|
How on earth did it get to 2018 before she had an inkling that he
>> wasn't safe with lone women particularly after drink?
>
Obvious answer is she knew, easier to ignore as she was on the up and he was a big name.
|
>> Obvious answer is she knew, easier to ignore as she was on the up and
>> he was a big name.
One also wonders if she had any personal experience of his behaviour.
|
I think that in Nicola Sturgeon the SNP have got exactly the leader they deserve and Scotland the appropriate First Minister.
No tears shed by me. The Scotch want more and more self-determination so they need to take responsibility and sort out stuff they don't like. They chose, and continue to choose, her so......
|
>> They chose, and continue to choose, her so.....
Pretty much all the opposition parties have is this bungled investigations into Salmond. Then general public don't GAS about it.
The Tories are toxic now they have the blond doughnut in charge (Bojo is worse than Sturgeon on pretty much every level as a leader, and their Scottish leader, Douglas Ross, has the charisma of a drugged walrus. Ruth Davidson has become a caricature offering nothing other than attacking Sturgeon and is about to take up her seat in the Lords and probably a role in UK Govt), Labour have nothing to offer (SNP already offer a left-of-centre party without loonie lefts, or having to kowtow to UK Labour), and the Lib Dems are bobbing around in the middle of the sea.
Can't really see any result other than SNP, probably supported by the Greens.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 23 Mar 21 at 21:23
|
>> I think that in Nicola Sturgeon the SNP have got exactly the leader they deserve
>> and Scotland the appropriate First Minister.
She's actually got the skills to look like a convincing leader and, in a different light, PM.
If only she'd joined Labour instead of the Nationalists.
|
>> One also wonders if she had any personal experience of his behaviour.
As I said, "One isn't allowed to speculate".
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 24 Mar 21 at 03:09
|
I can't quite work out what he is after or what he hopes to achieve.
It's all very much sadism, necrophilia and bestiality.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 25 Mar 21 at 14:02
|
>> I can't quite work out what he is after or what he hopes to achieve.
I suspect mostly he hopes mainly to embarrass Ms Sturgeon, Lesley Evans and various others amongst both politicians and officials.
The Scottish Government will at some stage, after initial procedural skirmishing, have to decide whether to force it to trial or settle. The former will potentially maximise show value and the latter, unless handled very carefully look as if Alick has won.
I wonder how deep his pockets are......
|
Just for the satisfaction of embarrassing them? You may well be right but it could backfire.
>>I wonder how deep his pockets are......
I think that is part of the problem, the money isn't [all?] coming from his pockets. Didn't he start some sort of crowdfunding campaign a while ago?
I suspect that there are other interests behind him and that the SNP & NS are well aware of that.
|
AS has his followers within SNP. There are very specific “camps” between NS and AS. AS has Joanna Cherry who I hugely admire especially on her stance on Trans laws. SNP are pushing ahead with very liberal laws on this front.
Interestingly, one of AS backers, Craig Murray, an ex diplomat and who was very vocal all the way through this in support of AS was today found guilty of contempt of court for his blogs which could identify the women at the centre of the enquiry.
Is all got very mucky and could maybe have worked out worse for NS if it wasn’t for Boris and all his cronies who have set the behaviour bar so low that you could actually see the Scottish Tories cringe as they tried to hold her to account whilst watching folk like Boris, Patel and Hancock break every rule in the book, lie to parliament and not be held to account.
In fact even Starmer said Sturgeon should go. The same Starmer who said nobody wanted to see Hancock go when he was found in breach!
British politics is a right mess.
|
>>British politics is a right mess.
I think you could change the word "British" for "World".
|
>> >>British politics is a right mess.
>>
>> I think you could change the word "British" for "World".
Indeed, there is nothing unique about British politics.
|
>> AS has his followers within SNP. There are very specific “camps” between NS and AS.
>> AS has Joanna Cherry who I hugely admire especially on her stance on Trans laws.
>> SNP are pushing ahead with very liberal laws on this front.
Salmond forms his own Alba party:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/26/alex-salmond-launches-new-independence-focused-political-party-alba
Is Joanna Cherry likely to go with him?
|
I would think so. She announced yesterday that she was taking some time out on health grounds.
Think that’s politics talk of getting in first and saying I won’t be answering any questions on this.
|
>> Is Joanna Cherry likely to go with him?
>>
Surely it will split the SNP vote and ensure that both become irrelevant? I'd have thought the Scotch would see that even if they couldn't see the kind of man Salmond is.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 26 Mar 21 at 22:11
|
>> Surely it will split the SNP vote and ensure that both become irrelevant? I'd have
>> thought the Scotch would see that even if they couldn't see the kind of man
>> Salmond is.
Hard to think it's not just vanity on his part. He does seem to have a very high opinion of himself and the sound of his own voice.
|
>> Hard to think it's not just vanity on his part. He does seem to have
>> a very high opinion of himself and the sound of his own voice.
An unusual trait in a politician, surely?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 26 Mar 21 at 22:11
|
>> Surely it will split the SNP vote and ensure that both become irrelevant? I'd have
>> thought the Scotch would see that even if they couldn't see the kind of man
>> Salmond is.
He's said to be very popular in some areas such as Banff and Buchan where he was the MP. Scottish elections are PR so votes fairly quickly translate into seats.
|
Shamelessly plagiarised from elsewhere:
Alba = Alex Loves Boobs and A*ses
|
>> Johnny Mercer resigns.
Fell or pushed?
|
|
There was a Conservative with integrity, so they got rid of him. Makes sense.
|
>> There was a Conservative with integrity, so they got rid of him. Makes sense.
He does seem more honest and straightforward than the run of the mill MP but of course he has a proper work etc history; not PPE>SPAD>Safe Seat.
However I think pushing for immunity from prosecution for potential criminality during the troubles is a mistake. There should be some sort of trial where the facts can be properly explored.
Sentence (assuming guilt) is the point for any form of mitigation and, given the mass release of those convicted of offences in the paramilitaries, equality of treatment.
|
>> However I think pushing for immunity from prosecution for potential criminality during the troubles is
>> a mistake. There should be some sort of trial where the facts can be properly
>> explored.
>>
>> Sentence (assuming guilt) is the point for any form of mitigation and, given the mass
>> release of those convicted of offences in the paramilitaries, equality of treatment.
>
Thats what he was after from my understanding, equality of treatment. Those who had served in NI had been repeatedly investigated over years even decades, he was looking to draw a line under it all as the GFA had for the paramilitary groups.
|
>> Thats what he was after from my understanding, equality of treatment. Those who had served
>> in NI had been repeatedly investigated over years even decades, he was looking to draw
>> a line under it all as the GFA had for the paramilitary groups.
I take the point but there's an argument that criminality by the forces of the state is a different order of offending. On the other hand those who survive to be charged in the 21st century were young, inexperienced and in a place/atmosphere they'd no concept of or training for. Their seniors, who should have a can to carry, are long dead.
|
You can hold people to different standards but then that leads to where we are now. I do think that a decision should have been made by now, how many historical/legacy investigation teams/branches are needed over years and years to make a decision?
Or perhaps that's the plan, just keep reinvestigating it all until they are all dead.
|
>> You can hold people to different standards but then that leads to where we are
>> now. I do think that a decision should have been made by now, how many
>> historical/legacy investigation teams/branches are needed over years and years to make a decision?
A South Africa style Truth and Reconciliation Commission might have done the job but is there, or was there ever, the political will?
|
|
I was thinking of something similar, however you've got to want to be open to the truth. There's too many in NI who want to stay in the shadows.
|
>> I was thinking of something similar, however you've got to want to be open to
>> the truth. There's too many in NI who want to stay in the shadows.
I have a pal who lives near Lurgan, and he says most people most of the time don't give the politics of Loyalism and Republicanism any thought at all, as you would expect. However I did visit Brownlow House, now the HQ of the local Orange Order (it has an interesting history unrelated to that). I talked with someone who had successfully argued for the discontinuation of 'marches' which he thought were a needless provocation in the Republican areas they went into. Although in general people presumably don't want sectarian violence, he got a lot of pushback and even threats from people who were unconcerned with, or perhaps even liked, the confrontational aspect of the marching.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 21 Apr 21 at 15:47
|
>> A South Africa style Truth and Reconciliation Commission might have done the job but is
>> there, or was there ever, the political will?
To a disinterested (uninterested?) agnostic Englishman there seems to be an absence of Truth and lack of will for Reconciliation.
|
>> To a disinterested (uninterested?) agnostic Scotsman there seems to be an absence of Truth and lack of will for Reconciliation.
Such polarized and ongoing separate social groups are more interested in recriminations than reconciliations.
|
|
The parties involved are behaving exactly as they wish to behave and exactly as they would like to continue to behave. They're not going to let you take away their media acceptable justification, whichever side they're on.
|
>> A South Africa style Truth and Reconciliation Commission might have done the job
Alas there was little evidence of either in the end.
|
www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/23/people-want-a-change-labour-faces-fight-to-hold-hartlepool-in-byelection
Thought I'd shove it in this thread, as Labour might lose this seat. I can see both main parties are throwing plenty into this, after all the blows he's taken the PM is going to pretty happy if they pick this Labour seat up.
SKS will be pretty miffed if they lose, should be rock solid Labour seat and yet they are in a real fight here. It doesn't say much for their policies/leadership if they can't win here. But we will see in a few weeks time.
|
I don't know I'd see the loss of Hartlepool, if it happens, as a loss in and of itself.
Perhaps though, it should be taken as a push for Labour to reconsider their entire approach. Being strong in heavy, union controlled, industries & manufacturing is less and less relevant these days. I don't think their ideals need changing, but for sure the way they play the game does.
|
The Conservatives have done well out of Covid 19. The vaccination roll out is so far ahead of most other countries, especially those in the EU that there is a feel good factor of sorts.
That, coupled with a Labour leader who has had a charisma by-pass (That's two in a row) is giving them a boost.
Unfortunately.
|
There is very little news about Starmer that makes it way far enough over the parapet to show up here. And the stuff that does show is very dull and uninspirational.
His little spat with the dick in the pub is about the most positive publicity I've seen.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 24 Apr 21 at 21:48
|
Another One Bites the Dust - Bromptonaut
