Keir Starmer

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Yes, you give the PM some free tickets to your concert and in exchange you get a police escort.

I'm hoping this is sarcasm, it's difficult to tell in written words sometimes.

For the avoidance of doubt, the PM or Home Sec, or anybody else in the Home Office or government have NO POWER to instruct Police on Operational Matters.
The choice to provide a police escort was entirely a Police Operations decision, and most likely precipitated by actual known threat targeting overseas.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

.

 

[John Brown]

It doesn't surprise me that you'd prefer Russia.

I beg your pardon, I mistakenly thought you were talking America versus the UK.
I retract my remark.

 

[sploo]

That the NHS operates using private sector resources is nothing new - drugs manufacture, hospital construction, medical consumables, x-ray and imaging machinery, IT hardware and systems etc etc etc. Most would have no issue with this.

There may be more concern perceived where the private sector delivers services somewhat closer to patient outcomes - cleaning, catering, etc.

Yet most don't realise that GP surgeries and services. - a fundamental NHS building block - has been privately run under contract to the NHS since its inception.

GPs are critical - they manage delivery of healthcare to their local community and act as the gatekeeper to most other facilities and specialisms through referral processes.

That GP services are struggling is largely driven by the financial and contractual terms under which they currently operate. The general public and GPs would no doubt be delighted if contractual issues were resolved to enable a return to the high standards delivered over the last 75 years.

The knee jerk reaction - private involvement in the NHS is the precursor to is demise - is without foundation as has been demonstrated over decades.

My wife's an NHS doctor, and has watched more parts of the NHS slowly get farmed out to private contractors over the last decade. No argument that some parts have always been provided/supplied by private firms, but what's happened recently is much more insidious.

 

[sploo]

I beg your pardon, I mistakenly thought you were talking America versus the UK.
I retract my remark.

If Phil did mean the US, then I can tell him that doctor wife has also worked there; and witnessed the joys of patients being checked for a credit card before commencing any treatment (after immediate triage). Otherwise you get farmed out to a charity run hospital.

 

[Blackswanwood]

My wife's an NHS doctor, and has watched more parts of the NHS slowly get farmed out to private contractors over the last decade. No argument that some parts have always been provided/supplied by private firms, but what's happened recently is much more insidious.

Genuine question - what is it that has happened recently that you are referring to?

 

[sploo]

Genuine question - what is it that has happened recently that you are referring to?

A particular recent issue has been the replacement of permanent NHS staff with people provided by private contract firms. Probably not appropriate for me to go into detail of specific roles, but whilst they're not doctors or nurses they are people that directly interact with patients at a medical level (i.e. it's not "just cleaners" of stuff like that).

 

[ey_tony]

Dodging the question with a different question Tony?

Perhaps if we were starting from here we wouldn’t have signed up to the ECHR. Our membership is inextricably linked with the GFA though.

Let’s not muddy the water with why we need it and you share your cunning plan as to how we withdraw without destroying the GFA whilst keeping a workable relationship with the EU and US?

Oh and don’t forget you were going to share your master plan to renegotiate our trade deal with the EU …

Why is asking a rational question dodging the question?
While on the subject of questions I'll ask you the same question, why you believe it's impossible that the links between the GFA and the ECHR can't be re-negotiated?
If I'm honest eventually I can see a divided Ireland returning to just one nation and then there will be no need for the rest of the UK to be subject to ECHR rulings.
With the mindset that nothing can be done, then nothing will ever change or improve and we'll be stuck in the same rut for centuries.

Again, I'll wager you voted Remain judging by your comment on re-negotiating trading with the EU!
The UK was in a prime position and arguably still is to benefit from leaving the EU based on trading figures after it voted to leave the EU but the pro-EU lobby and negotiators threw away vital opportunities as they were afraid to negotiate without their caps in hand. I have to say the EU had far better negotiators than the UK but then again the establishment didn't really want to leave the EU in the first place.

The people and business potential of this country are being slowly strangled by the mindsets of people with their 'this or that can't be done or achieved'. It's little wonder that the economy is stagnant. It needs people with enthusiasm and drive to get the UK's economy moving again not people with the dynamics of a stone laying there saying it can't be done.

The EU is not our friend, it is a competitor and should be treated as such and their access to our markets should benefit us, only then will our economy start achieving it's true potential.
The referendum was over 8 years ago, it's now time to re-negotiate the terms of many trading agreements which were effectively handed to the EU on a plate. Even Captain Two-Tier has said as much.

 

[Yorkieguy]

I'm hoping this is sarcasm, it's difficult to tell in written words sometimes.

For the avoidance of doubt, the PM or Home Sec, or anybody else in the Home Office or government have NO POWER to instruct Police on Operational Matters.
The choice to provide a police escort was entirely a Police Operations decision, and most likely precipitated by actual known threat targeting overseas.

To say the PM and Home Secretary nor anyone else have 'NO POWER' (You 'shouting' - not me) over operational decisions is simply not credible.

Why do I say that?

As well as the Prime Minister, ten other Labour MPs said they also received free tickets to see Ms Swift, including Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, and London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

Why have I highlighted the Home Secretary and London Mayor, both of whom were recipients of free tickets?

At the centre of the issue is the claim that senior Labour figures, including Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and London Mayor Sadiq Khan, personally intervened to secure a high-security police escort, despite the initial hesitance from the Met, and despite the initial resistance, the SEG eventually agreed.

The Attorney General (Who as far as I know didn't receive tickets) was also involved in discussions. Swift was granted blue-light police escorts to her London shows after the Government’s chief law officer put pressure on Scotland Yard. Sources said that Attorney General Lord Hermer was asked to intervene after the Met Police warned that giving the billionaire pop star such protection would breach its protocols.

It was unclear who in Government had requested that its top lawyer get involved, according to reports last night. However, it was claimed that it was only after Lord Hermer wrote to the Met that senior officers reversed their original decision and granted a level of security normally reserved for royalty and top-level politicians.

Sir Keir, and his wife Victoria were granted a private audience with Taylor Swift on August 20 – the final night of Swift's tour – after he received £2,800 of tickets and hospitality from her record label Universal came just days after the PM's now-sacked chief of staff Sue Gray took part in negotiations with Ms Swift's mother and manager, Andrea, which led to Scotland Yard agreeing to provide a 'VVIP' escort, which is even denied to the Duke of Sussex, (fifth in line to the throne), when visiting Britain.

The Met Police Commissioner is accountable in law for exercising police powers and to the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime and to the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime and is held to account for the delivery of policing by the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London. Both have a role in appointing the Commissioner, with the decision taken by the Home Secretary following consultation with the Mayor.

The Home Secretary also has a specific role regarding the functions of the Met that go beyond policing London – for example, counter-terrorism policing and the national policing functions that the Met carries out. The Mayor of London was given a direct mandate for policing in London in 2011, as part of the Police and Social Responsibility Act. As such, the Mayor is responsible for setting the strategic direction of policing in London through the Police and Crime Plan.

https://www.met.police.uk/police-forces/metropolitan-police/areas/about-us/about-the-met/governance/

To say that the Home Secretary and Major of London 'have NO POWER' over operation decisions would have some credibility if they and the rest of the top team hadn't received many thousands of pounds worth of tickets to a sell-out tour, but yet again, through their lack of judgement and probity, they've seriously compromised the independence of their roles in the highest office of the land, and brought disrepute on themselves.

You may not think so, and more concerning, is that they seem not to think so, but I do and I doubt that I'm alone in that view. It isn't about whether they're Labour Tory or whatever. It's about senior politicians not behaving in such a manner that calls into question their independence.

And please, for goodness sake, don't tell me 'they haven't broken any rules'.

This decision has been met with fierce criticism within the policing community, not only for its cost to the taxpayer but for setting what some consider a dangerous precedent.

“An Abuse of an Elite Service”:

Former Met commander John O’Connor has been particularly vocal about the decision, branding it “an abuse of an elite service”. He told the press: “The SEG is dedicated to the very serious business of protecting the Royal Family, senior government ministers and foreign heads of state. This interference creates a perception that there is no such thing as a free lunch or concert tickets.”

https://emergency-services.news/tay...ort-sparks-controversy-a-dangerous-precedent/

Exactly so.

Just a final point: This wasn't an armed escort - just a 'blue light escort' so was really just glitzy 'Showbiz' razzmatazz at Taxpayers' expense.

 

[niall Y]

All this aside - Given the proven track record of Islamic terrorists to target the concerts of popular female pop-stars, it would have been remiss not to have provided protection, overt or covert, to such a high profile event.
Imagine the repercussions for the police and the security services, if anything had gone wrong.

 

[Noel]

Why is asking a rational question dodging the question?
While on the subject of questions I'll ask you the same question, why you believe it's impossible that the links between the GFA and the ECHR can't be re-negotiated?
If I'm honest eventually I can see a divided Ireland returning to just one nation and then there will be no need for the rest of the UK to be subject to ECHR rulings.
With the mindset that nothing can be done, then nothing will ever change or improve and we'll be stuck in the same rut for centuries.

Again, I'll wager you voted Remain judging by your comment on re-negotiating trading with the EU!
The UK was in a prime position and arguably still is to benefit from leaving the EU based on trading figures after it voted to leave the EU but the pro-EU lobby and negotiators threw away vital opportunities as they were afraid to negotiate without their caps in hand. I have to say the EU had far better negotiators than the UK but then again the establishment didn't really want to leave the EU in the first place.

The people and business potential of this country are being slowly strangled by the mindsets of people with their 'this or that can't be done or achieved'. It's little wonder that the economy is stagnant. It needs people with enthusiasm and drive to get the UK's economy moving again not people with the dynamics of a stone laying there saying it can't be done.

The EU is not our friend, it is a competitor and should be treated as such and their access to our markets should benefit us, only then will our economy start achieving it's true potential.
The referendum was over 8 years ago, it's now time to re-negotiate the terms of many trading agreements which were effectively handed to the EU on a plate. Even Captain Two-Tier has said as much.

Disappointing that you can't even offer the tiniest hint of understanding on the GFA/ECHR.
So many times I hear "let's get out of this", "let's cancel that", "we don't need this" etc, etc and when a simple question is asked on perhaps the consequences or how it will effect ordinary people or is there an alternative all you get is, to quote Howard O'Brien, blah, blah, blah.
You might garner some credibility with those that disagree with your views if you only could back up those views with a basic understanding.
Perhaps I'm wrong and you'll offer some insight.
Thanks

 

[ey_tony]

Disappointing that you can't even offer the tiniest hint of understanding on the GFA/ECHR.
So many times I hear "let's get out of this", "let's cancel that", "we don't need this" etc, etc and when a simple question is asked on perhaps the consequences or how it will effect ordinary people or is there an alternative all you get is, to quote Howard O'Brien, blah, blah, blah.
You might garner some credibility with those that disagree with your views if you only could back up those views with a basic understanding.
Perhaps I'm wrong and you'll offer some insight.
Thanks

I've spent my life listening to plenty of losers who believed nothing could be done or achieved, only to find that things could be done and achieved by approaching any issues correctly with a different vision to resolving any conflicts so I never let meaningless goading intimidate me when they have the can't-be- done mindset as it's best taken with a large pinch of the proverbial.
As I've said I just don't subscribe to the notion that everything if set in stone and can't be re-evaluated or renegotiated. Clearly you do regarding the GFA/ECHR issues.
Exactly how will leaving the ECHR affect ordinary people?
You've still not explained why the UK needs the ECHR to oversee our judicial system. Why does the UK need an outside body to potentially overrule legal decisions made by the UK judiciary? Do you not trust them?

 

[Blackswanwood]

Why is asking a rational question dodging the question?

Because you are not answering the question that was put to you. You have claimed that we can withdraw from the ECHR, it's been pointed out it's intertwined with the GFA and you've not explained how that can be overcome.

While on the subject of questions I'll ask you the same question, why you believe it's impossible that the links between the GFA and the ECHR can't be re-negotiated?

Happy to answer. While I'm not an expert on the GFA I know it was very difficult to get to a point of agreement in the first place. If you then lay on top of that the complexities that arise as a result of us leaving the EU and how long it took to arrive at where we are now I think we need to take care to be certain we don't create another distraction by spending ages looking for something that will not ultimately be agreed.

I do know from direct experience that the situation in Northern Ireland while perhaps not fragile is not rock solid.

I've not said it's impossible - I'm highly sceptical though. Some seem to see leaving the ECHR as the answer to all our problems - I doubt it is.

Again, I'll wager you voted Remain judging by your comment on re-negotiating trading with the EU!

I did but I accept the result and think we need to move on. That applies just as much as those who voted leave and now feel it's not the right sort of Brexit etc etc. I'll wager you voted Leave based on your comments which suggest a view that the EU just needs to fall in line and hand over the "oven ready deal" we were promised by Boris (By the way - whatever happened to the £350m a week?).

The UK was in a prime position and arguably still is to benefit from leaving the EU based on trading figures after it voted to leave the EU but the pro-EU lobby and negotiators threw away vital opportunities as they were afraid to negotiate without their caps in hand. I have to say the EU had far better negotiators than the UK but then again the establishment didn't really want to leave the EU in the first place.

Perhaps it was a bit arrogant to think that the EU would just fold?

There you go again with an unsubstantiated sweeping statement. What great cards did we hold that were played badly? We already had a privileged position in the club and wanted an even better one when we left.

The people and business potential of this country are being slowly strangled by the mindsets of people with their 'this or that can't be done or achieved'. It's little wonder that the economy is stagnant. It needs people with enthusiasm and drive to get the UK's economy moving again not people with the dynamics of a stone laying there saying it can't be done.

I agree. It's the "what needs to be done" that we perhaps disagree on. I'm more in the camp of move forward from where we are now rather than reopen the wounds that have held us back. I hope the less adversarial approach being suggested by the current government works better than the one we've seen since the referendum result. For the avoidance of doubt that's not a suggestion we should rejoin!

I'm out of this discussion as the balance of my posting is veering too much towards the general topics rather than woodworking which is after all what unites us!

 

[Spectric]

Is this debate regarding the EU, Brexit etc etc getting a little old hat now as what has been done has been done and no one will get anywhere by keep looking backwards and the forthcoming budget should be of more concern as that will impact everything including what we have in our pockets to spend on our hobbies and for retailers like Axminster and many others to continue as a business with the potential hikes in business NI and workers rights. If you really wanted to kickstart an economy then you need to leave more money in peoples pockets and have a short term reduction in VAT as an incentive for people to spend, economics is not that difficult.

 

[Noel]

I've spent my life listening to plenty of losers who believed nothing could be done or achieved, only to find that things could be done and achieved by approaching any issues correctly with a different vision to resolving any conflicts so I never let meaningless goading intimidate me when they have the can't-be- done mindset as it's best taken with a large pinch of the proverbial.
As I've said I just don't subscribe to the notion that everything if set in stone and can't be re-evaluated or renegotiated. Clearly you do regarding the GFA/ECHR issues.
Exactly how will leaving the ECHR affect ordinary people?
You've still not explained why the UK needs the ECHR to oversee our judicial system. Why does the UK need an outside body to potentially overrule legal decisions made by the UK judiciary? Do you not trust them?

So what's your vision regarding GFA? I'm all ears and eyes.

 

[Spectric]

How about giving the people a referendum on unification with Ireland to become one, if you cut an apple in half you still have an apple but in two parts which is what Ireland currently is and if we can give some islands back then why not accept Ireland is Ireland and not Britain. In fact why not just have a big sort out and give back everything we have conquered during the empire years and put that part of our history to bed once and for all.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

You

To say the PM and Home Secretary nor anyone else have 'NO POWER' (You 'shouting' - not me) over operational decisions is simply not credible.

Why do I say that?

As well as the Prime Minister, ten other Labour MPs said they also received free tickets to see Ms Swift, including Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, and London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

Why have I highlighted the Home Secretary and London Mayor, both of whom were recipients of free tickets?

At the centre of the issue is the claim that senior Labour figures, including Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and London Mayor Sadiq Khan, personally intervened to secure a high-security police escort, despite the initial hesitance from the Met, and despite the initial resistance, the SEG eventually agreed.

The Attorney General (Who as far as I know didn't receive tickets) was also involved in discussions. Swift was granted blue-light police escorts to her London shows after the Government’s chief law officer put pressure on Scotland Yard. Sources said that Attorney General Lord Hermer was asked to intervene after the Met Police warned that giving the billionaire pop star such protection would breach its protocols.

It was unclear who in Government had requested that its top lawyer get involved, according to reports last night. However, it was claimed that it was only after Lord Hermer wrote to the Met that senior officers reversed their original decision and granted a level of security normally reserved for royalty and top-level politicians.

Sir Keir, and his wife Victoria were granted a private audience with Taylor Swift on August 20 – the final night of Swift's tour – after he received £2,800 of tickets and hospitality from her record label Universal came just days after the PM's now-sacked chief of staff Sue Gray took part in negotiations with Ms Swift's mother and manager, Andrea, which led to Scotland Yard agreeing to provide a 'VVIP' escort, which is even denied to the Duke of Sussex, (fifth in line to the throne), when visiting Britain.

The Met Police Commissioner is accountable in law for exercising police powers and to the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime and to the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime and is held to account for the delivery of policing by the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London. Both have a role in appointing the Commissioner, with the decision taken by the Home Secretary following consultation with the Mayor.

The Home Secretary also has a specific role regarding the functions of the Met that go beyond policing London – for example, counter-terrorism policing and the national policing functions that the Met carries out. The Mayor of London was given a direct mandate for policing in London in 2011, as part of the Police and Social Responsibility Act. As such, the Mayor is responsible for setting the strategic direction of policing in London through the Police and Crime Plan.

https://www.met.police.uk/police-forces/metropolitan-police/areas/about-us/about-the-met/governance/

To say that the Home Secretary and Major of London 'have NO POWER' over operation decisions would have some credibility if they and the rest of the top team hadn't received many thousands of pounds worth of tickets to a sell-out tour, but yet again, through their lack of judgement and probity, they've seriously compromised the independence of their roles in the highest office of the land, and brought disrepute on themselves.

You may not think so, and more concerning, is that they seem not to think so, but I do and I doubt that I'm alone in that view. It isn't about whether they're Labour Tory or whatever. It's about senior politicians not behaving in such a manner that calls into question their independence.

And please, for goodness sake, don't tell me 'they haven't broken any rules'.

This decision has been met with fierce criticism within the policing community, not only for its cost to the taxpayer but for setting what some consider a dangerous precedent.

“An Abuse of an Elite Service”:

Former Met commander John O’Connor has been particularly vocal about the decision, branding it “an abuse of an elite service”. He told the press: “The SEG is dedicated to the very serious business of protecting the Royal Family, senior government ministers and foreign heads of state. This interference creates a perception that there is no such thing as a free lunch or concert tickets.”

https://emergency-services.news/tay...ort-sparks-controversy-a-dangerous-precedent/

Exactly so.

Just a final point: This wasn't an armed escort - just a 'blue light escort' so was really just glitzy 'Showbiz' razzmatazz at Taxpayers' expense.

TLDR: You say "not credible" and provide lots of words to try to make a weasley case that doesn't actually stack up.

The only response to your "not credible" is a big fat yes, it is credible, because it happens to be true. I did mention the words "Operational Decision" for a good reason.

It is a fact that we have true independence between Government(executive), Parliament(legislature), Police(enforcement) and Judiciary in the UK.

The UK government have NO POWER to direct the UK Police to do anything at all. FACT.

Neither does any of the body of councils or the Mayor. Setting "strategic direction" is not directing Operational Matters.

The independence of the Police is fundamental in our democracy.
Braverman got into very deep bother in trying to coerce the Met to her will. It almost got her sacked, but something else got her first. Thankfully.
And this Braverman behaviour is the very epitome of the sleaze that was so vilified in the recent past. Not the very fake and fabricated version that the Murdoch and Harmsworth Press are foisting onto the narrative.

Making noise about something because you think it "looks like" something is just that. Noise. It is absolutely not a credible claim on your part, or anyone else's, to basically construct a conspiracy theory type narrative, when there is, factually, and in observable reality, no mechanism under which a government member or agency can instruct the Police to do the things that you're implying. It's fanciful. /end

 

[Spectric]

If we are not careful Starmer will try and curtail free speech and there was something in that new workers rights thing where it might be that a barman gets offended because of what he hears some customers talking about and might then have some comeback on his boss, really .

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

The Tories of the last 14 years are not remotely far right. Had that been the case - perhaps the NHS would by now have been largely dismantled with insurance based private healthcare in its place - spend in real terms increased by 35%, staff by 30%.

The last government also introduced - for instance:

• introduction of triple lock for pensions
• government spending as a share of GDP from 1985 to 2007 was below 40% compared to 45% in the last 3 years (Covid peak ignored)
• employee legislation - equality act, unfair dismissal, parental leave, minimum wage,

In terms of international comparison, UK public expenditure at 44% of GDP is a little below average for Europe, the same as Japan, but much higher than US, India, South Africa, and many others.

Isn't it a well known fact that the NHS has been largely dismantled?
Wasn't the recent cut to NI just another double edged last ditch attempt to both: to help accelerate the dismantling of the NMS; and a salt-the-earth policy designed to entrap the new government into "raising taxes" and then pointing the finger saying "ah yes, just as we said, Labour just want to increase your taxes"?
That insurance based healthcare that you're suggesting is already part in place in the UK and is a significant growth industry - which is helping to dismantle the NHS as the Private Providers poach the trained staff and charge the NHS more for the privilege.

You may well talk about employee legislation, but that is something which the new govt is set to improve. Whilst in the background one of the main contenders of the Tory leadership has actively platformed that employee legislation needs to be reduced (maternity/paternity rights)

You may well also talk about spending % of GDP, but we explicitly understand that our poor GDP performance (due in the most part to Brexit (fact)) artificially inflates the spending %.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

If we are not careful Starmer will try and curtail free speech and there was something in that new workers rights thing where it might be that a barman gets offended because of what he hears some customers talking about and might then have some comeback on his boss, really .

Is that a nudge to yesterday's lie in the headline about not saying hello to your boss?

The article itself details that the headline is false. The article itself details that the boss had unlawfully withheld sick pay. End of story.