Friday, 6 December 2019

Oven-ready

So, somewhat late in the day, the BBC have finally decided to try and redeem themselves from accusations of bias towards Boris Johnson and the Tory Party. Having endlessly accused Jeremy Corbyn of being 'frit', it turns out it's Boris who is too scared to face some serious scrutiny and where he knows his bullshit and bluster won't wash - ironically in front of arch-Tory Andrew Neil.

Without doubt it's a shocking time for democracy with a bare-faced bully and liar being allowed to pretty much set the political agenda during a general election and avoid any serious questioning that would highlight both his nasty character and endless falsehoods. Both he and his sociopathic minders know full well that Jeremy Corbyn is too decent and will not stoop to personal attack, so Boris gets away with it.

Lets hope the cynical calculation back-fires and next Thursday the Electorate delivers a hung Parliament. Whatever, it's going to be an extraordinary event that's impossible for anyone to call. I've run a Polling Station for over 30 years and been told more staff have been allocated due to a massive amount of recent registrations. I'm sure this pattern is mirrored all over the country and most are likely to be young people. Draw your own conclusion as to what their voting intentions are likely to be.

I gather there's been a surge in postal voting as well and if some seasonal bad weather is added into the equation, it's anybody's guess what could happen. Meanwhile, lets remind ourselves of what Andrew Neil said last night about our scared prime minister:-

"And that concludes our fourth leaders' interview for the general election of 2019. There is, of course, still one to be done. Boris Johnson. The prime minister. We have been asking him for weeks now to give us a date, a time, a venue. As of now, none has been forthcoming. No broadcaster can compel a politician to be interviewed.

But leaders' interviews have been a key part of the BBC's prime-time election coverage for decades. We do them, on your behalf, to scrutinise and hold to account those who would govern us. That is democracy. We have always proceeded in good faith that the leaders would participate. And in every election they have. All of them. Until this one. It is not too late. We have an interview prepared. Oven-ready, as Mr Johnson likes to say.

The theme running through our questions is trust - and why at so many times in his career, in politics and journalism, critics and sometimes even those close to him have deemed him to be untrustworthy. It is, of course, relevant to what he is promising us all now. Can he be trusted to deliver 50,000 more nurses when almost 20,000 in his numbers are already working for the NHS?

He promises 40 new hospitals. But only six are scheduled to be built by 2025. Can he be believed when he claims another 34 will be built in the five years after that? Can he be trusted to fund the NHS properly when he uses a cash figure of an extra £34bn? After inflation the additional money promised amounts to £20bn. He vows that the NHS will not be on the table in any trade talks with America.

But he vowed to the DUP, his Unionist allies in Northern Ireland, that there would never be a border down the Irish Sea. That is as important to the DUP as the NHS is to the rest of us. It is a vow his Brexit deal would seem to break. Now he tells us he's always been an opponent of austerity. We would ask him for evidence of that. And we would want to know why an opponent of austerity would bake so much of it into their future spending plans.

We would ask why, as with the proposed increase in police numbers, so many of his promises only take us back to the future. Back to where we were before austerity began. Social care is an issue of growing concern. On the steps of Downing Street in July he said he'd prepared a plan for social care. We'd ask him why that plan is not in his manifesto.

Questions of trust. Questions we'd like to put to Mr Johnson so you can hear his replies. But we can't. Because he won't sit down with us. There is no law, no Supreme Court ruling that can force Mr Johnson to participate in a BBC leaders' interview. But the prime minister of our nation will, at times, have to stand up to President Trump, President Putin, President Xi of China. So it was surely not expecting too much that he spend half an hour standing up to me. Good night."

Andrew Neil

14 comments:

  1. Liars'R'Us Episode 3997 - Sajid Javid & Homelessness

    "On Sky News this morning, Chancellor Sajid Javid claimed that homelessness reached its peak in 2008 under Labour and since then is down by almost a half. There are lots of different ways of measuring homelessness, and none of them give a full picture. But according to all the evidence we’ve seen, this is almost the exact opposite of what has happened. We contacted the Conservative party to ask what evidence Mr Javid had for his claim.

    The Conservatives later told Channel 4 FactCheck that he had misremembered the statistic..."


    "Getting the dates wrong like this is significant because Mr Javid went on to say just a few seconds later that “it’s Labour that was responsible for the massive rise in homelessness”. Yet when we look at the dataset he’s referring to, it becomes clear that Labour oversaw all of the decline in statutory homelessness that Mr Javid seems to take credit for. Statutory homelessness was 135,590 in 2003, and fell to 42,390 by the time Labour left office in 2010.

    That means Labour presided over a 69 per cent drop in statutory homelessness in their final seven years in government."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even Dame Louise Useless can't handle it anymore:

      "What is he on to just sit there and hand out lie after lie?" said the former homelessness tsar after the Chancellor claimed homelessness had fallen by half since 2008 & continued that it was “Labour that was responsible for the massive rise of homelessness”.

      Charity Shelter has confirmed homelessness has not halved but in fact has increased 9% since 2008.

      "Politicians must just tell the truth when it comes to statistics," said Dame Louise Casey, who also heads up the World’s Biggest Sleep Out Trust.

      "Almost two decades later since we published the government strategy called Come in from the Cold, the numbers of people on every single indicator of homelessness are up."

      She continued that since 2010, the number of people that are sleeping rough has gone up 165%.

      https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/shelagh-fogarty/sajid-javid-handed-out-lie-after-lie-about-homeles/

      Delete
  2. From Twitter:-

    Johnson confirms he is rejecting Neil interview

    Senior Con source: “The public are fed up with interviews that are all about the interviewer and endless interruptions. The format is tired and broken and needs to change if it is to start engaging and informing the public again.”

    “The PM will focus on talking to voters about their priorities including investing in our NHS and helping with the cost of living.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From Twitter:-

      Senior Tory Source: “This shows why it has been impossible to co-operate with Channel 4 News. They are campaigners in this election - inventing the most damaging things possible to further their campaign against Brexit."

      "This sort of thing is why so many media organisations have collapsing audiences. We sadly do not expect the senior management at Channel 4 to take this terrible mistake seriously and we expect more of the same.”

      Delete
  3. There has been a re-emergence of a highly infectious & potentially life-changing disease currently spreading across the UK which now appears to be developing a new strain.

    Its thought this recent outbreak started & spread in the US, with only a handful of cases reported in the UK; but now it appears many more cases went unnoticed, the consequence being that the condition has developed at an extraordinary pace.

    Historically the English seem to have acquired the condition, known as *mis prefix*, from their Norman cousins at some time in the 14th century: so the Old French word mésparler meaning to traduce or calumniate may be a worthy progenitor of “misspeak”.

    Chaucer, Wycliffe and Shakespeare all succumbed. Even at first blush, we can see that it has a phylogenetic relationship – that is, it shares common roots – with other expressions prefixed with “mis-”, some of which have blameless connotations, such as “mistake”, “mislay” and “mishap”. Others, though, are less innocent – notably “mislead” and “misuse”...

    Today it seems that misspeak - or mis-speak as it might also be known - is adapting to a 21st century environment & recent cases of mis-remembering have been notified.

    If you are aware of any possible cases of misspeaking or misremembering - or of any related conditions including misleading, misappropriating, misusing, misdirection, etc - please bring it to the nation's attention.

    NB: please be aware that 'mis' is also an oft used acronym for 'management information systems'. This may lead to a misunderstanding.


    Acknowledgement: https://theconversation.com/from-geoffrey-chaucer-to-jeff-sessions-misspeaking-is-when-you-lie-about-lying-74087

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Misspeaking is when you lie about lying

      When US attorney-general Jeff Sessions told his confirmation hearing he had not had any communication with any Russians during the presidential election campaign, only for it to turn out that he had twice met with the Russian ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak, he was apparently “misspeaking”. So that’s ok then.

      But maybe not – while “misspeak” undoubtedly has the innocent connotation of “speaking incorrectly” or even “mispronouncing”, it is a sad reflection on contemporary life that whenever a politician uses a word, no matter how blameless the context might appear, people are less and less inclined to take the meaning of that word at face value.

      There is no other word quite like “misspeak”. This is because to claim to have misspoken – as used by our political overlords – is essentially to tell a lie about a lie. So it not only relates to untruth, the phrase itself contains an untruth.

      Delete
    2. Watch Andrew Neil lay down the gauntlet to Johnson.

      https://youtu.be/66Pjp75LeLY

      Delete
  4. Liars'R'Us - Episode 4105

    Post-discussions around the ineffectual de-radicalisation programmes, the SOTP debacle & a comment on this blog, Penelope Gibbs asks 'Where is the evidence base for accredited programmes?' & exposes the lack of honesty around 'accredited programmes' (as seen on Russell Webster's blog):

    *** Last week the government published a tender for the new probation services contract . The publication was controversial because of the timing – just before a potential change of government — and because it is not clear what is being tendered for...

    The basic idea of the reforms is to keep management of probation in the public sector but to outsource rehabilitation programmes and unpaid work. Unfortunately we don’t know whether most of the outsourced programmes work. They are “accredited” by HMPPS but the accreditation system is swathed in a cloud of mystery. It is not clear who accredits courses, nor exactly what criteria are used.

    A slightly ominous passage in the tender suggests what a provider might do if one of the accredited programmes fails: “The Authority may from time to time request that the Supplier provide optional services. These include …delivery of additional structured interventions in the areas of emotional management, attitude, thinking and behaviours (ATB) and domestic abuse”. “Structured interventions” is a vague term. Presumably it refers to unaccredited courses made up by the provider. Last year the probation inspectorate found that CRCs were designing their own domestic abuse interventions:

    “Some responsible officers were delivering the domestic abuse RAR [rehabilitation activity requirement] on a one-to-one basis, borrowing resources from colleagues, browsing the internet for resources or devising their own one-to-one interventions. There was no system in place to make sure that interventions were evidence-based and delivered safely and effectively”***

    ----------------------------------------------------

    Its merely a perpetuation of a vicious circle, the self-aggrandising vested interests of senior simple serpents, their chums & the wannabe lickspittles that will implement anything for a senior post, a gong & a platinum pension.

    Its nowt to do with effective practice, meaningful interventions or professional standards of any description.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The CJS is again about to become the focus of this election I think.

    https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/06/joseph-mccann-convicted-horrific-rapes-after-being-let-out-of-jail-by-mistake?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15756372452174&amp_ct=1575637220661&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk-news%2F2019%2Fdec%2F06%2Fjoseph-mccann-convicted-horrific-rapes-after-being-let-out-of-jail-by-mistake

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
  6. "uk's most dangerous sexual predator"

    So Ian Lawrence once again underwhelms with his 1pm news interview. Yes, maybe it was edited heavily, but it wasn't convincing I'm afraid.

    Those around me watching the news simply tutted, shook their heads, muttered "disgraceful", "that's no excuse", "bloody do-gooders" & "what about those poor women and kids".

    Three POs disciplined, one sacked say the newscasters - did that include a line manager or anyone of any seniority? It makes it sound like it was simply poor practice by PO staff UNLESS the facts can be established.

    Once more we see a tragedy marked by the public flogging of overworked under-resourced frontline staff.

    The HMPPS staff and politically motivated sycophants who created the disastrous working environment & who facilitated the dumping of hundreds of experienced staff got what? Big bonuses, honours, new jobs &/or massive payoffs. Where are they when it comes to the investigation into what went wrong with the service they ripped apart.

    It STINKS. Its a cesspool of nepotism, personal gain & slopey shoulders.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My caseload peaked this year at over 150% of capacity. If you had a car whose top speed was 100 mph would a complaint that it wouldn't operate properly at 150 mph be reasonable? Would the DRIVER of the car, attempting to drive at 150mph, be considered a responsible and safe driver?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am truly sorry about all of this and continue to be relieved at my luck - not skill/dedication/etc - that I was not involved in an SFO in my almost 30 year career.

      I am also clear, although I was derided here at the time, I would not have worked on after the split in 2014/15 and that was why I was suggesting folk simply went and got another job - they could not have run probation without probation workers and unless one is a probation worker one cannot be held responsible for failings when there is an SFO.

      It was apparent to me - as a distant observer - that what was designed was simply not good enough and no staff should be expected to work in the way that The UK Government required.

      I think I feel similarly about Universal Credits - although I do not think those trying to adminster the service are blamed or demoted when a claimant dies or defrauds as a consequence of the way benefits are being administered

      Delete
  8. https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alexandra-hall-resign-brexit-embassy-ambassador-boris-johnson-us-a9236151.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&amp#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fpolitics%2Falexandra-hall-resign-brexit-embassy-ambassador-boris-johnson-us-a9236151.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. A senior British diplomat in Washington has quit her post, saying she is no longer prepared to "peddle half-truths" about Brexit on behalf of a Government she does not trust.

    Alexandra Hall Hall, the lead envoy for Brexit at the British embassy, accused ministers of using "misleading or disingenuous" arguments about the implications of leaving the EU.

    In her resignation letter, obtained by the US broadcaster CNN, Ms Hall Hall said her position had become "unbearable personally and untenable professionally".

    "I am also at a stage in life where I would prefer to do something more rewarding with my time, than peddle half-truths on behalf of a government I do not trust," she wrote.

    In her resignation letter, obtained by the US broadcaster CNN, Ms Hall Hall said her position had become "unbearable personally and untenable professionally".

    ReplyDelete