jeffs posts
Another significant report, this time by Z2K, has just been published by yet another well-meaning charity, demonstrating once again the numbers of chronically ill and disabled people suffering, due to the policies of this dangerous neoliberal, extreme right-wing Conservative government. The difficulty is, we’ve heard it all before…
How many more reports will we see, all telling the same story, whilst totally missing the point?
I have been researching this subject for very nearly ten years, to the point where there are some academics who acknowledge me as the lead independent researcher in the UK regarding the American corporate influence with UK social policies.
But, does anyone in the disabled community or charity sector take any notice of the vast amount of evidence exposed over the years? Seemingly not, as demonstrated by the conclusions to these many reports which are invariably wrong because they are concentrating on the wrong priorities.
The political rhetoric willingly reported by the national press, and repeated by various charities writing more official reports, is that the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) were introduced by the government as ‘cost-saving measures’, with the ambition to reduce government spending on disability benefits.
That claim was a political smokescreen that most seem to have fallen for…
Clearly, the introduction of the ESA and PIP have not reduced the costs of disability benefits funded by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP); not least because the corporate contracts paid to the private sector to conduct these test runs into £multi-millions, money which if better spent could save the NHS, and has trebled the expenditure by the DWP in the last ten years.
The reality is that the assessment for both ESA and PIP uses the fatally flawed Waddell and Aylward biopsychosocial (BPS) model of assessment, with this 2005 DWP commissioned research funded by UnumProvident Insurance, and designed to restrict access to benefit as the BPS model disregards diagnosis, prognosis, past medical history and prescribed drugs.
More News: 'Hidden housing crisis' is damaging disabled people's health, warns charity
In other words, the totally bogus Waddell and Aylward BPS model of assessment, as used to assess claimants for the ESA and PIP benefits, and for the new Universal Credit too, is designed for sick and disabled people to fail the assessment, and is a replica of the assessment model used by Unum (Provident) Insurance to resist funding income protection insurance policies.
Rather than government ‘cost-saving measures’, these assessments were designed to reduce public confidence in the welfare state, which would lead to the removal of the welfare state to eventually replace it with private healthcare insurance, as a replica of the American system.
That is why the second worst insurance company in America, who were identified as an ‘outlaw company’, have been official government advisers for ‘welfare claims management’ since 1994, and distinguished academics were warning about the American influence with the UK’s welfare policies as long ago as 2004.
If nothing else, the DWP and the UK government stand back and watch as more and more protests build, and reports are written about assessments, mandatory reconsiderations, appeal tribunals, the cruelty, suffering and despair, the removal of Legal Aid, the closure of the Independent Living Fund, etc, etc, etc. This was all planned a long time ago, and this is what the DWP want to happen because, with all that effort concentrating on the many different atrocities, no-one is concentrating on the real agenda; which is the planned demolition of the UK welfare state.
In reality, all the atrocities that people are experiencing are only possible because the tyranny is securely in place, following many years of misleading political rhetoric, geared to reduce the public psychological confidence in the welfare state, to make it much easier to remove.
More News: Tories 'creating hostile environment for disability benefit claimants'
Chronically ill and disabled people live in fear of the DWP and the inevitable brown envelope, calling them for another meaningless assessment using the totally bogus and very dangerous Waddell and Aylward BPS assessment model.
The negative impact on public mental health of these assessments has been very well documented, and suicides linked to the ESA are at disturbing levels, with one NHS report advising that almost 50% of ESA claimants had attempted suicide.
Considering the possible combined resources of the disability support groups and the charity sector, it should be possible to pool resources and concentrate on one subject, and one subject only. The BPS assessment model used for the ESA, PIP and UC ‘assessments’ has failed all academic scrutiny and is demonstrated to have created preventable harm. It should be stopped with immediate effect.
If all effort and resources were combined to that one goal then progress could be made, not least because the DWP will not see it coming…
Posted by jeffrey davies on 07 July 2018
government hay
t's time that we all familiarised ourselves with the Ministerial Code that ministers are supposedly required to adhere to! After all, if you or I breached our terms and conditions of employment we would face serious disciplinary proceedings that could result in the termination of our employment. (1.3c is the relevant section in McLie's case).
MINISTERIAL CODE
1
MINISTERS OF THE CROWN
General principle
1.1
Ministers of the Crown are expected to maintain high
standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.
1.2 Ministers should be professional in all their dealings and treat all those with whom they come into contact with
consideration and respect. Working relationships,
including with civil servants, ministerial and parliamentary
colleagues and parliamentary staff should be proper and
appropriate. Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or
discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not
consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.
1.3
The Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life. They are expected to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life
set out at Annex A, and the following principles of Ministerial conduct:
a.
The principle of collective responsibility applies to
all Government Ministers;
b.
Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies;
c.
It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers
who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;
d.
Ministers should be as open as possible with
Parliament and the public, refusing to provide
information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000;
e.
Ministers should similarly require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their direction to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of civil servants as set out in the Civil
Service Code;
f.
Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests;
g.
Ministers should not accept any gift or hospitality
which might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement or place them under an improper obligation;
h.
Ministers in the House of Commons must keep separate their roles as Minister and constituency Member;
i.
Ministers must not use government resources for Party political purposes; and
j.
Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Codeas set out in the
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
1.4
It is not the role of the Cabinet Secretary or other officials
to enforce the Code. If there is an allegation about a breach of the Code, and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary feels that it warrants further investigation, she will refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests.
1.5
The Code provides guidance to Ministers on how they should act and arrange their affairs in order to uphold these standards. It lists the principles which may apply in particular situations. It applies to all members of the Government and coversParliamentary Private Secretaries in paragraphs 3.7 – 3.12.
1.6
Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.However, Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. She is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.
1.7
Ministers must also comply at all times with the requirements which Parliament itself has laid down in relation to the accountability and responsibility of Ministers. For Ministers
in the Commons, these are set by the Resolution carried on 19 March 1997 (Official Report columns 1046-47), the terms of which are repeated at b. to e. above. For Ministers in the Lords, the Resolution can be found in the Official Reportof 20 March 1997 column 1057. Ministers must also comply with the Codes of Conduct for their respective Houses and also any requirements placed on them by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 06 July 2018
reply | edit & publish | delete
jeffs posts
A new Prime Minister, a new Foreign Secretary, and a major breach of Porton Down security that threatened to become political dynamite for a Conservative Government already struggling to survive after an ill-timed General Election. Is this how the Salisbury Novichok saga started - as a means to cover up incompetence by blaming Putin?
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Nothing is ever this simple, but herewith the Overture: a jaundiced eye applied to the latest Salisbury New Stuff about New Stuff, which by now is seriously Old Hat Stuff.
The unexpectedly good news about England's soccer success thus far (and the Russians turning out to be exemplary World Cup hosts in every way) has got everyone calmed down and in a generally good mood. That plus the best summer for many a long year means that, on the whole, the last thing anyone cares about is NATO and the collective security orgasms of Federica Mogherini. In fact, the only thing irritating the 17.4 million Leave-voting UK adults (that's 52% for the mathematically dyslexic) is that unelected power, bad losers, PR whores like Nina Schick, Care in the Community loons like Baron Astonish and geopolitics are getting in the way of what's left of our democracy.
Tomorrow sees a crunch Cabinet meeting. My hunch is that it will be followed by much smiling and loyalty signalling, but nothing that either the 17.4 million or the Sprouts of Brussels will sign up to.....as things stand. So in order to please the US and its spawn NATO, the spin tempo has been upped a little - and that's almost certainly why we see Novichok back in the headlines, increased public fears about deadly contamination, and Land Rover saying Brexit may well cause them to pull out of the UK. Perhaps the hope is that the harder Brexit cases in the Cabinet can be persuaded (with the help of dire MI5/6 warnings) to accept closer links to the Eutanic than they would prefer.
But as I suggested at the outset, nothing is that simple.....although among the more twisted minds in the Big Vauxhall Box, it may well be one dimension of what's going on here.
In fact, if one analyses the events more closely, what I think we're watching here is part politicians looking for distraction, part gross incompetence on the part of the security and police forces of Britain, part Theresa May trying to box her way out of a mineshaft and - possibly - a new avenue of thinking about how the Salisbury saga got started that has come to light purely by accident.
Just to confuse you further, I want to start at the beginning, by writing about incompetence. I have long held the view (based on experience and memory, not ideology or a vivid imagination) that such conspiracies as exist often start as an attempt to cover up incompetence. We're in a mess not "thanks to" Brexit but because Theresa May's antennae are incompetent, politicians lie nonstop, our Foreign Secretary is incompetent, and police, security forces, military intelligence, the FCO and the Home Office are a truly vomituous mix of self-interested mendacity incapable of catching cholera in a sewer, let alone "terrorists".
Consider the track record before, during and since the Novichok nonsense:
There are now 18,000 jihadists in Britain, and we don't where they are.
After four months on the case, those forces from which we expect expertise got the original Skripal diagnosis wrong, got the injured copper's condition wrong - and stumbled about being "sure" in turn that Ms Skripal's flight baggage, Mr Skripal's car AC system, a park bench and a doorknob were the media used to try and bump them off.
The scientists at Porton Down started by saying they didn't know the identity of the nerve agent for sure, then they became more sure, but not as sure as Boris Johnson said they were, because he's a pathological liar with form as long as the Grand National.
Not a single suspect has been identified or held beyond the "somebody in Russia being protected by the Putin régime" line that suffers, lets face it, a credibility gap wider than the Grand Canyon. Grand Nationals and Canyons, you see: the governmental classes believe in Big when it comes to fibbing....as indeed they do in most things.
Boris Johnson attempted to start World War III by called the World Cup "an attempt to do what Hitler did with the 1936 Olympics". This morning - in the light of Novichok II - May's security minister Ben Wallace told Sky News that "the World Cup is not about politics, it is about extraordinary athletes doing extraordinary things". Bit of a difference in emphasis there? Surely not. After all, BoJo said he would boycott the tournament.....but then changed his mind once England started winning.
As regards this new case, it is now Thursday, the cops and Special Branch have been on it for 5 days, and the certainties were elucidated thus by the rather dull Mr Wallace today: "We don't know exactly where the couple went last weekend and we haven't as yet located any next of kin, but we think at some time on Saturday or perhaps Sunday it's not clear, they may have gone to a hog roast. But what's clear from what we know so far is that this was not an attack as such, and may well be some left-over Novichok from the previous incident." That's up there with Peter Cook's memorable sketch about Inspector Streeb-Greebling and the Great Train Robbery of 1963: "I should like to reassure the public that no train has been stolen, merely the money substances it was carrying".
Wallace then went on to say the UK had requested help from the Putin government and this had been refused. I'm sorry, but that is a blatant lie: the Russians offered full cooperation to the Foreign Office, and they rebuffed it - for reasons which remain the subject of richly-deserved speculation.
Every day for eight days on the trot during the Skripal affair, we were treated to the sight of yet more "expert" nerve agent clean-up Johnnies kitted out to the gills, and it now turns out that the clean-up was in fact a f**k-up, because they missed a bit. The way you do.
So the Government's insistence that Salisbury was a safe zone afterwards was also a load of cobblers....as a result of which two more people are now in Salisbury hospital being treated by staff subjected to yet more D-Notice threats about not talking the evil press - who are "just poking about in things that don't concern them", as Prince Andrew is wont to remark.
'Amateur night for Baldricks' doesn't even begin to get close to this as a track record, does it? One is reminded of the Jeremy Thorpe conspiracy Judge - also satirised by Cook - who said in a sketch devised by Peter, "I turn now to evidence of blah-blah....a man who could not even organise the simplest murder plot without cocking it up". How we miss Cookie, and what a ball he'd be having with all this make-believe if he were still made flesh.
But it's the clean-up-cock-up connection that has made me think again about how the Skripal affair got started in the first place.
There are several things that have always bothered me beyond any other doubts in relation to the Salisbury caper:
It has been largely assumed by the media that the Skripals were and are British agents. In fact, as they had already been turned by MI5, there is no reason at all to believe firmly in their loyalty to any single sovereign. Are they simply still loyal to the Russian Federation?
I always felt that their decision to settle in England almost within walking distance of the Portan Down Chemical Warfare facility was stretching coincidence somewhat. Did Russian controllers ask them to settle there?
The timing of the attack never made any sense at all in the light of Russia's need to dilute a developing Russophobic narrative by using the World Cup as a showpiece.
When Johnson, May, Trump and Macron turned the incident into an excuse to bomb Syria as "a warning" to Putin, they did so by accusing Assad of chemical warfare on his own People. Objectively, the kindest thing one can say about that accusation is that it too made no sense, and a variety of "experts" on the scene have said in unison that they have found no evidence of such an attack having occurred.
Suppose that Slog's Law of Cock-up producing Cover-up turned to Cocker-ups' advantage applies here?
That is to say, let's suggest that the real centre of the original Black Op was Portan Down itself. That Sergei Skripal had fed the facility via his British controllers with stolen "formulae" obtained by his still active daughter Yulia. This was in fact for 'Novichok' -which the Russians could use as bait, as it was no longer of interest to them: having once been New Stuff, it was now Obsolete Stuff.
But then something alerted either the Porton Down scientists or MI5 to the fact that the Skripals were still RF agents. By this time, Boris Johnson was properly installed as Foreign Secretary with May (still close to the security services following her Home Office stint) in Number Ten. They were briefed that there was a problem.
And indeed it was a problem, for the Skripals had outwitted UK military intelligence...and thus there had been a massive security breach which had to be disguised as something else.
So somewhere along the line, somebody - the CIA maybe - got involved and came up with the idea of making the best of a bad job....by killing the Skripals with "Russian" nerve agent, blaming it on Putin, and using his close alliance with alleged chemical weapon beast Assad to enable the NATO bombing of key Syrian air force installations....and thus pass advantage on to his enemies - who were being bankrolled by the Pentagon, the CIA, John McCain and a host of other psychos.
But as always, the experts f**ked up. The dose the newly revealed traitors got was nowhere near strong enough to kill them....perhaps even because their Russian controllers had deliberately falsified the formula they fed to MI5 via Yulia Skripal.
And then down the road, the chemical clear-up was screwed up as well. Which brings us to where we are today.
Now obviously, this is informed guesswork, and there could be many points where my theory here is at fault.
I ask you only this: does it strike you as more or less credible than the Dan-Dare-meets-Flash-Gordon bollocks we've all been asked to swallow up until now?
Let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time that government incompetence has been turned to geopolitical advantage via opportunist lies.
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 06 July 2018
reply | edit & publish | delete
government hay
t's time that we all familiarised ourselves with the Ministerial Code that ministers are supposedly required to adhere to! After all, if you or I breached our terms and conditions of employment we would face serious disciplinary proceedings that could result in the termination of our employment. (1.3c is the relevant section in McLie's case).
MINISTERIAL CODE
1
MINISTERS OF THE CROWN
General principle
1.1
Ministers of the Crown are expected to maintain high
standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.
1.2 Ministers should be professional in all their dealings and treat all those with whom they come into contact with
consideration and respect. Working relationships,
including with civil servants, ministerial and parliamentary
colleagues and parliamentary staff should be proper and
appropriate. Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or
discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not
consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.
1.3
The Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life. They are expected to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life
set out at Annex A, and the following principles of Ministerial conduct:
a.
The principle of collective responsibility applies to
all Government Ministers;
b.
Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies;
c.
It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers
who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;
d.
Ministers should be as open as possible with
Parliament and the public, refusing to provide
information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000;
e.
Ministers should similarly require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their direction to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of civil servants as set out in the Civil
Service Code;
f.
Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests;
g.
Ministers should not accept any gift or hospitality
which might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement or place them under an improper obligation;
h.
Ministers in the House of Commons must keep separate their roles as Minister and constituency Member;
i.
Ministers must not use government resources for Party political purposes; and
j.
Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Codeas set out in the
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
1.4
It is not the role of the Cabinet Secretary or other officials
to enforce the Code. If there is an allegation about a breach of the Code, and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary feels that it warrants further investigation, she will refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests.
1.5
The Code provides guidance to Ministers on how they should act and arrange their affairs in order to uphold these standards. It lists the principles which may apply in particular situations. It applies to all members of the Government and coversParliamentary Private Secretaries in paragraphs 3.7 – 3.12.
1.6
Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.However, Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. She is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.
1.7
Ministers must also comply at all times with the requirements which Parliament itself has laid down in relation to the accountability and responsibility of Ministers. For Ministers
in the Commons, these are set by the Resolution carried on 19 March 1997 (Official Report columns 1046-47), the terms of which are repeated at b. to e. above. For Ministers in the Lords, the Resolution can be found in the Official Reportof 20 March 1997 column 1057. Ministers must also comply with the Codes of Conduct for their respective Houses and also any requirements placed on them by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 06 July 2018
reply | edit & publish | delete
jeffs posts
A new Prime Minister, a new Foreign Secretary, and a major breach of Porton Down security that threatened to become political dynamite for a Conservative Government already struggling to survive after an ill-timed General Election. Is this how the Salisbury Novichok saga started - as a means to cover up incompetence by blaming Putin?
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Nothing is ever this simple, but herewith the Overture: a jaundiced eye applied to the latest Salisbury New Stuff about New Stuff, which by now is seriously Old Hat Stuff.
The unexpectedly good news about England's soccer success thus far (and the Russians turning out to be exemplary World Cup hosts in every way) has got everyone calmed down and in a generally good mood. That plus the best summer for many a long year means that, on the whole, the last thing anyone cares about is NATO and the collective security orgasms of Federica Mogherini. In fact, the only thing irritating the 17.4 million Leave-voting UK adults (that's 52% for the mathematically dyslexic) is that unelected power, bad losers, PR whores like Nina Schick, Care in the Community loons like Baron Astonish and geopolitics are getting in the way of what's left of our democracy.
Tomorrow sees a crunch Cabinet meeting. My hunch is that it will be followed by much smiling and loyalty signalling, but nothing that either the 17.4 million or the Sprouts of Brussels will sign up to.....as things stand. So in order to please the US and its spawn NATO, the spin tempo has been upped a little - and that's almost certainly why we see Novichok back in the headlines, increased public fears about deadly contamination, and Land Rover saying Brexit may well cause them to pull out of the UK. Perhaps the hope is that the harder Brexit cases in the Cabinet can be persuaded (with the help of dire MI5/6 warnings) to accept closer links to the Eutanic than they would prefer.
But as I suggested at the outset, nothing is that simple.....although among the more twisted minds in the Big Vauxhall Box, it may well be one dimension of what's going on here.
In fact, if one analyses the events more closely, what I think we're watching here is part politicians looking for distraction, part gross incompetence on the part of the security and police forces of Britain, part Theresa May trying to box her way out of a mineshaft and - possibly - a new avenue of thinking about how the Salisbury saga got started that has come to light purely by accident.
Just to confuse you further, I want to start at the beginning, by writing about incompetence. I have long held the view (based on experience and memory, not ideology or a vivid imagination) that such conspiracies as exist often start as an attempt to cover up incompetence. We're in a mess not "thanks to" Brexit but because Theresa May's antennae are incompetent, politicians lie nonstop, our Foreign Secretary is incompetent, and police, security forces, military intelligence, the FCO and the Home Office are a truly vomituous mix of self-interested mendacity incapable of catching cholera in a sewer, let alone "terrorists".
Consider the track record before, during and since the Novichok nonsense:
There are now 18,000 jihadists in Britain, and we don't where they are.
After four months on the case, those forces from which we expect expertise got the original Skripal diagnosis wrong, got the injured copper's condition wrong - and stumbled about being "sure" in turn that Ms Skripal's flight baggage, Mr Skripal's car AC system, a park bench and a doorknob were the media used to try and bump them off.
The scientists at Porton Down started by saying they didn't know the identity of the nerve agent for sure, then they became more sure, but not as sure as Boris Johnson said they were, because he's a pathological liar with form as long as the Grand National.
Not a single suspect has been identified or held beyond the "somebody in Russia being protected by the Putin régime" line that suffers, lets face it, a credibility gap wider than the Grand Canyon. Grand Nationals and Canyons, you see: the governmental classes believe in Big when it comes to fibbing....as indeed they do in most things.
Boris Johnson attempted to start World War III by called the World Cup "an attempt to do what Hitler did with the 1936 Olympics". This morning - in the light of Novichok II - May's security minister Ben Wallace told Sky News that "the World Cup is not about politics, it is about extraordinary athletes doing extraordinary things". Bit of a difference in emphasis there? Surely not. After all, BoJo said he would boycott the tournament.....but then changed his mind once England started winning.
As regards this new case, it is now Thursday, the cops and Special Branch have been on it for 5 days, and the certainties were elucidated thus by the rather dull Mr Wallace today: "We don't know exactly where the couple went last weekend and we haven't as yet located any next of kin, but we think at some time on Saturday or perhaps Sunday it's not clear, they may have gone to a hog roast. But what's clear from what we know so far is that this was not an attack as such, and may well be some left-over Novichok from the previous incident." That's up there with Peter Cook's memorable sketch about Inspector Streeb-Greebling and the Great Train Robbery of 1963: "I should like to reassure the public that no train has been stolen, merely the money substances it was carrying".
Wallace then went on to say the UK had requested help from the Putin government and this had been refused. I'm sorry, but that is a blatant lie: the Russians offered full cooperation to the Foreign Office, and they rebuffed it - for reasons which remain the subject of richly-deserved speculation.
Every day for eight days on the trot during the Skripal affair, we were treated to the sight of yet more "expert" nerve agent clean-up Johnnies kitted out to the gills, and it now turns out that the clean-up was in fact a f**k-up, because they missed a bit. The way you do.
So the Government's insistence that Salisbury was a safe zone afterwards was also a load of cobblers....as a result of which two more people are now in Salisbury hospital being treated by staff subjected to yet more D-Notice threats about not talking the evil press - who are "just poking about in things that don't concern them", as Prince Andrew is wont to remark.
'Amateur night for Baldricks' doesn't even begin to get close to this as a track record, does it? One is reminded of the Jeremy Thorpe conspiracy Judge - also satirised by Cook - who said in a sketch devised by Peter, "I turn now to evidence of blah-blah....a man who could not even organise the simplest murder plot without cocking it up". How we miss Cookie, and what a ball he'd be having with all this make-believe if he were still made flesh.
But it's the clean-up-cock-up connection that has made me think again about how the Skripal affair got started in the first place.
There are several things that have always bothered me beyond any other doubts in relation to the Salisbury caper:
It has been largely assumed by the media that the Skripals were and are British agents. In fact, as they had already been turned by MI5, there is no reason at all to believe firmly in their loyalty to any single sovereign. Are they simply still loyal to the Russian Federation?
I always felt that their decision to settle in England almost within walking distance of the Portan Down Chemical Warfare facility was stretching coincidence somewhat. Did Russian controllers ask them to settle there?
The timing of the attack never made any sense at all in the light of Russia's need to dilute a developing Russophobic narrative by using the World Cup as a showpiece.
When Johnson, May, Trump and Macron turned the incident into an excuse to bomb Syria as "a warning" to Putin, they did so by accusing Assad of chemical warfare on his own People. Objectively, the kindest thing one can say about that accusation is that it too made no sense, and a variety of "experts" on the scene have said in unison that they have found no evidence of such an attack having occurred.
Suppose that Slog's Law of Cock-up producing Cover-up turned to Cocker-ups' advantage applies here?
That is to say, let's suggest that the real centre of the original Black Op was Portan Down itself. That Sergei Skripal had fed the facility via his British controllers with stolen "formulae" obtained by his still active daughter Yulia. This was in fact for 'Novichok' -which the Russians could use as bait, as it was no longer of interest to them: having once been New Stuff, it was now Obsolete Stuff.
But then something alerted either the Porton Down scientists or MI5 to the fact that the Skripals were still RF agents. By this time, Boris Johnson was properly installed as Foreign Secretary with May (still close to the security services following her Home Office stint) in Number Ten. They were briefed that there was a problem.
And indeed it was a problem, for the Skripals had outwitted UK military intelligence...and thus there had been a massive security breach which had to be disguised as something else.
So somewhere along the line, somebody - the CIA maybe - got involved and came up with the idea of making the best of a bad job....by killing the Skripals with "Russian" nerve agent, blaming it on Putin, and using his close alliance with alleged chemical weapon beast Assad to enable the NATO bombing of key Syrian air force installations....and thus pass advantage on to his enemies - who were being bankrolled by the Pentagon, the CIA, John McCain and a host of other psychos.
But as always, the experts f**ked up. The dose the newly revealed traitors got was nowhere near strong enough to kill them....perhaps even because their Russian controllers had deliberately falsified the formula they fed to MI5 via Yulia Skripal.
And then down the road, the chemical clear-up was screwed up as well. Which brings us to where we are today.
Now obviously, this is informed guesswork, and there could be many points where my theory here is at fault.
I ask you only this: does it strike you as more or less credible than the Dan-Dare-meets-Flash-Gordon bollocks we've all been asked to swallow up until now?
Let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time that government incompetence has been turned to geopolitical advantage via opportunist lies.
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 06 July 2018
reply | edit & publish | delete
government hay
t's time that we all familiarised ourselves with the Ministerial Code that ministers are supposedly required to adhere to! After all, if you or I breached our terms and conditions of employment we would face serious disciplinary proceedings that could result in the termination of our employment. (1.3c is the relevant section in McLie's case).
MINISTERIAL CODE
1
MINISTERS OF THE CROWN
General principle
1.1
Ministers of the Crown are expected to maintain high
standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.
1.2 Ministers should be professional in all their dealings and treat all those with whom they come into contact with
consideration and respect. Working relationships,
including with civil servants, ministerial and parliamentary
colleagues and parliamentary staff should be proper and
appropriate. Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or
discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not
consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.
1.3
The Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life. They are expected to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life
set out at Annex A, and the following principles of Ministerial conduct:
a.
The principle of collective responsibility applies to
all Government Ministers;
b.
Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies;
c.
It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers
who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;
d.
Ministers should be as open as possible with
Parliament and the public, refusing to provide
information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000;
e.
Ministers should similarly require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their direction to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of civil servants as set out in the Civil
Service Code;
f.
Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests;
g.
Ministers should not accept any gift or hospitality
which might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement or place them under an improper obligation;
h.
Ministers in the House of Commons must keep separate their roles as Minister and constituency Member;
i.
Ministers must not use government resources for Party political purposes; and
j.
Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Codeas set out in the
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
1.4
It is not the role of the Cabinet Secretary or other officials
to enforce the Code. If there is an allegation about a breach of the Code, and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary feels that it warrants further investigation, she will refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests.
1.5
The Code provides guidance to Ministers on how they should act and arrange their affairs in order to uphold these standards. It lists the principles which may apply in particular situations. It applies to all members of the Government and coversParliamentary Private Secretaries in paragraphs 3.7 – 3.12.
1.6
Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.However, Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. She is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.
1.7
Ministers must also comply at all times with the requirements which Parliament itself has laid down in relation to the accountability and responsibility of Ministers. For Ministers
in the Commons, these are set by the Resolution carried on 19 March 1997 (Official Report columns 1046-47), the terms of which are repeated at b. to e. above. For Ministers in the Lords, the Resolution can be found in the Official Reportof 20 March 1997 column 1057. Ministers must also comply with the Codes of Conduct for their respective Houses and also any requirements placed on them by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 06 July 2018
reply | edit & publish | delete
jeffs posts
A new Prime Minister, a new Foreign Secretary, and a major breach of Porton Down security that threatened to become political dynamite for a Conservative Government already struggling to survive after an ill-timed General Election. Is this how the Salisbury Novichok saga started - as a means to cover up incompetence by blaming Putin?
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Nothing is ever this simple, but herewith the Overture: a jaundiced eye applied to the latest Salisbury New Stuff about New Stuff, which by now is seriously Old Hat Stuff.
The unexpectedly good news about England's soccer success thus far (and the Russians turning out to be exemplary World Cup hosts in every way) has got everyone calmed down and in a generally good mood. That plus the best summer for many a long year means that, on the whole, the last thing anyone cares about is NATO and the collective security orgasms of Federica Mogherini. In fact, the only thing irritating the 17.4 million Leave-voting UK adults (that's 52% for the mathematically dyslexic) is that unelected power, bad losers, PR whores like Nina Schick, Care in the Community loons like Baron Astonish and geopolitics are getting in the way of what's left of our democracy.
Tomorrow sees a crunch Cabinet meeting. My hunch is that it will be followed by much smiling and loyalty signalling, but nothing that either the 17.4 million or the Sprouts of Brussels will sign up to.....as things stand. So in order to please the US and its spawn NATO, the spin tempo has been upped a little - and that's almost certainly why we see Novichok back in the headlines, increased public fears about deadly contamination, and Land Rover saying Brexit may well cause them to pull out of the UK. Perhaps the hope is that the harder Brexit cases in the Cabinet can be persuaded (with the help of dire MI5/6 warnings) to accept closer links to the Eutanic than they would prefer.
But as I suggested at the outset, nothing is that simple.....although among the more twisted minds in the Big Vauxhall Box, it may well be one dimension of what's going on here.
In fact, if one analyses the events more closely, what I think we're watching here is part politicians looking for distraction, part gross incompetence on the part of the security and police forces of Britain, part Theresa May trying to box her way out of a mineshaft and - possibly - a new avenue of thinking about how the Salisbury saga got started that has come to light purely by accident.
Just to confuse you further, I want to start at the beginning, by writing about incompetence. I have long held the view (based on experience and memory, not ideology or a vivid imagination) that such conspiracies as exist often start as an attempt to cover up incompetence. We're in a mess not "thanks to" Brexit but because Theresa May's antennae are incompetent, politicians lie nonstop, our Foreign Secretary is incompetent, and police, security forces, military intelligence, the FCO and the Home Office are a truly vomituous mix of self-interested mendacity incapable of catching cholera in a sewer, let alone "terrorists".
Consider the track record before, during and since the Novichok nonsense:
There are now 18,000 jihadists in Britain, and we don't where they are.
After four months on the case, those forces from which we expect expertise got the original Skripal diagnosis wrong, got the injured copper's condition wrong - and stumbled about being "sure" in turn that Ms Skripal's flight baggage, Mr Skripal's car AC system, a park bench and a doorknob were the media used to try and bump them off.
The scientists at Porton Down started by saying they didn't know the identity of the nerve agent for sure, then they became more sure, but not as sure as Boris Johnson said they were, because he's a pathological liar with form as long as the Grand National.
Not a single suspect has been identified or held beyond the "somebody in Russia being protected by the Putin régime" line that suffers, lets face it, a credibility gap wider than the Grand Canyon. Grand Nationals and Canyons, you see: the governmental classes believe in Big when it comes to fibbing....as indeed they do in most things.
Boris Johnson attempted to start World War III by called the World Cup "an attempt to do what Hitler did with the 1936 Olympics". This morning - in the light of Novichok II - May's security minister Ben Wallace told Sky News that "the World Cup is not about politics, it is about extraordinary athletes doing extraordinary things". Bit of a difference in emphasis there? Surely not. After all, BoJo said he would boycott the tournament.....but then changed his mind once England started winning.
As regards this new case, it is now Thursday, the cops and Special Branch have been on it for 5 days, and the certainties were elucidated thus by the rather dull Mr Wallace today: "We don't know exactly where the couple went last weekend and we haven't as yet located any next of kin, but we think at some time on Saturday or perhaps Sunday it's not clear, they may have gone to a hog roast. But what's clear from what we know so far is that this was not an attack as such, and may well be some left-over Novichok from the previous incident." That's up there with Peter Cook's memorable sketch about Inspector Streeb-Greebling and the Great Train Robbery of 1963: "I should like to reassure the public that no train has been stolen, merely the money substances it was carrying".
Wallace then went on to say the UK had requested help from the Putin government and this had been refused. I'm sorry, but that is a blatant lie: the Russians offered full cooperation to the Foreign Office, and they rebuffed it - for reasons which remain the subject of richly-deserved speculation.
Every day for eight days on the trot during the Skripal affair, we were treated to the sight of yet more "expert" nerve agent clean-up Johnnies kitted out to the gills, and it now turns out that the clean-up was in fact a f**k-up, because they missed a bit. The way you do.
So the Government's insistence that Salisbury was a safe zone afterwards was also a load of cobblers....as a result of which two more people are now in Salisbury hospital being treated by staff subjected to yet more D-Notice threats about not talking the evil press - who are "just poking about in things that don't concern them", as Prince Andrew is wont to remark.
'Amateur night for Baldricks' doesn't even begin to get close to this as a track record, does it? One is reminded of the Jeremy Thorpe conspiracy Judge - also satirised by Cook - who said in a sketch devised by Peter, "I turn now to evidence of blah-blah....a man who could not even organise the simplest murder plot without cocking it up". How we miss Cookie, and what a ball he'd be having with all this make-believe if he were still made flesh.
But it's the clean-up-cock-up connection that has made me think again about how the Skripal affair got started in the first place.
There are several things that have always bothered me beyond any other doubts in relation to the Salisbury caper:
It has been largely assumed by the media that the Skripals were and are British agents. In fact, as they had already been turned by MI5, there is no reason at all to believe firmly in their loyalty to any single sovereign. Are they simply still loyal to the Russian Federation?
I always felt that their decision to settle in England almost within walking distance of the Portan Down Chemical Warfare facility was stretching coincidence somewhat. Did Russian controllers ask them to settle there?
The timing of the attack never made any sense at all in the light of Russia's need to dilute a developing Russophobic narrative by using the World Cup as a showpiece.
When Johnson, May, Trump and Macron turned the incident into an excuse to bomb Syria as "a warning" to Putin, they did so by accusing Assad of chemical warfare on his own People. Objectively, the kindest thing one can say about that accusation is that it too made no sense, and a variety of "experts" on the scene have said in unison that they have found no evidence of such an attack having occurred.
Suppose that Slog's Law of Cock-up producing Cover-up turned to Cocker-ups' advantage applies here?
That is to say, let's suggest that the real centre of the original Black Op was Portan Down itself. That Sergei Skripal had fed the facility via his British controllers with stolen "formulae" obtained by his still active daughter Yulia. This was in fact for 'Novichok' -which the Russians could use as bait, as it was no longer of interest to them: having once been New Stuff, it was now Obsolete Stuff.
But then something alerted either the Porton Down scientists or MI5 to the fact that the Skripals were still RF agents. By this time, Boris Johnson was properly installed as Foreign Secretary with May (still close to the security services following her Home Office stint) in Number Ten. They were briefed that there was a problem.
And indeed it was a problem, for the Skripals had outwitted UK military intelligence...and thus there had been a massive security breach which had to be disguised as something else.
So somewhere along the line, somebody - the CIA maybe - got involved and came up with the idea of making the best of a bad job....by killing the Skripals with "Russian" nerve agent, blaming it on Putin, and using his close alliance with alleged chemical weapon beast Assad to enable the NATO bombing of key Syrian air force installations....and thus pass advantage on to his enemies - who were being bankrolled by the Pentagon, the CIA, John McCain and a host of other psychos.
But as always, the experts f**ked up. The dose the newly revealed traitors got was nowhere near strong enough to kill them....perhaps even because their Russian controllers had deliberately falsified the formula they fed to MI5 via Yulia Skripal.
And then down the road, the chemical clear-up was screwed up as well. Which brings us to where we are today.
Now obviously, this is informed guesswork, and there could be many points where my theory here is at fault.
I ask you only this: does it strike you as more or less credible than the Dan-Dare-meets-Flash-Gordon bollocks we've all been asked to swallow up until now?
Let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time that government incompetence has been turned to geopolitical advantage via opportunist lies.
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 06 July 2018
reply | edit & publish | delete
government hay
t's time that we all familiarised ourselves with the Ministerial Code that ministers are supposedly required to adhere to! After all, if you or I breached our terms and conditions of employment we would face serious disciplinary proceedings that could result in the termination of our employment. (1.3c is the relevant section in McLie's case).
MINISTERIAL CODE
1
MINISTERS OF THE CROWN
General principle
1.1
Ministers of the Crown are expected to maintain high
standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.
1.2 Ministers should be professional in all their dealings and treat all those with whom they come into contact with
consideration and respect. Working relationships,
including with civil servants, ministerial and parliamentary
colleagues and parliamentary staff should be proper and
appropriate. Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or
discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not
consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.
1.3
The Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life. They are expected to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life
set out at Annex A, and the following principles of Ministerial conduct:
a.
The principle of collective responsibility applies to
all Government Ministers;
b.
Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies;
c.
It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers
who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;
d.
Ministers should be as open as possible with
Parliament and the public, refusing to provide
information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000;
e.
Ministers should similarly require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their direction to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of civil servants as set out in the Civil
Service Code;
f.
Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests;
g.
Ministers should not accept any gift or hospitality
which might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement or place them under an improper obligation;
h.
Ministers in the House of Commons must keep separate their roles as Minister and constituency Member;
i.
Ministers must not use government resources for Party political purposes; and
j.
Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Codeas set out in the
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
1.4
It is not the role of the Cabinet Secretary or other officials
to enforce the Code. If there is an allegation about a breach of the Code, and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary feels that it warrants further investigation, she will refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests.
1.5
The Code provides guidance to Ministers on how they should act and arrange their affairs in order to uphold these standards. It lists the principles which may apply in particular situations. It applies to all members of the Government and coversParliamentary Private Secretaries in paragraphs 3.7 – 3.12.
1.6
Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.However, Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. She is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.
1.7
Ministers must also comply at all times with the requirements which Parliament itself has laid down in relation to the accountability and responsibility of Ministers. For Ministers
in the Commons, these are set by the Resolution carried on 19 March 1997 (Official Report columns 1046-47), the terms of which are repeated at b. to e. above. For Ministers in the Lords, the Resolution can be found in the Official Reportof 20 March 1997 column 1057. Ministers must also comply with the Codes of Conduct for their respective Houses and also any requirements placed on them by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 06 July 2018
reply | edit & publish | delete
jeffs posts
A new Prime Minister, a new Foreign Secretary, and a major breach of Porton Down security that threatened to become political dynamite for a Conservative Government already struggling to survive after an ill-timed General Election. Is this how the Salisbury Novichok saga started - as a means to cover up incompetence by blaming Putin?
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Nothing is ever this simple, but herewith the Overture: a jaundiced eye applied to the latest Salisbury New Stuff about New Stuff, which by now is seriously Old Hat Stuff.
The unexpectedly good news about England's soccer success thus far (and the Russians turning out to be exemplary World Cup hosts in every way) has got everyone calmed down and in a generally good mood. That plus the best summer for many a long year means that, on the whole, the last thing anyone cares about is NATO and the collective security orgasms of Federica Mogherini. In fact, the only thing irritating the 17.4 million Leave-voting UK adults (that's 52% for the mathematically dyslexic) is that unelected power, bad losers, PR whores like Nina Schick, Care in the Community loons like Baron Astonish and geopolitics are getting in the way of what's left of our democracy.
Tomorrow sees a crunch Cabinet meeting. My hunch is that it will be followed by much smiling and loyalty signalling, but nothing that either the 17.4 million or the Sprouts of Brussels will sign up to.....as things stand. So in order to please the US and its spawn NATO, the spin tempo has been upped a little - and that's almost certainly why we see Novichok back in the headlines, increased public fears about deadly contamination, and Land Rover saying Brexit may well cause them to pull out of the UK. Perhaps the hope is that the harder Brexit cases in the Cabinet can be persuaded (with the help of dire MI5/6 warnings) to accept closer links to the Eutanic than they would prefer.
But as I suggested at the outset, nothing is that simple.....although among the more twisted minds in the Big Vauxhall Box, it may well be one dimension of what's going on here.
In fact, if one analyses the events more closely, what I think we're watching here is part politicians looking for distraction, part gross incompetence on the part of the security and police forces of Britain, part Theresa May trying to box her way out of a mineshaft and - possibly - a new avenue of thinking about how the Salisbury saga got started that has come to light purely by accident.
Just to confuse you further, I want to start at the beginning, by writing about incompetence. I have long held the view (based on experience and memory, not ideology or a vivid imagination) that such conspiracies as exist often start as an attempt to cover up incompetence. We're in a mess not "thanks to" Brexit but because Theresa May's antennae are incompetent, politicians lie nonstop, our Foreign Secretary is incompetent, and police, security forces, military intelligence, the FCO and the Home Office are a truly vomituous mix of self-interested mendacity incapable of catching cholera in a sewer, let alone "terrorists".
Consider the track record before, during and since the Novichok nonsense:
There are now 18,000 jihadists in Britain, and we don't where they are.
After four months on the case, those forces from which we expect expertise got the original Skripal diagnosis wrong, got the injured copper's condition wrong - and stumbled about being "sure" in turn that Ms Skripal's flight baggage, Mr Skripal's car AC system, a park bench and a doorknob were the media used to try and bump them off.
The scientists at Porton Down started by saying they didn't know the identity of the nerve agent for sure, then they became more sure, but not as sure as Boris Johnson said they were, because he's a pathological liar with form as long as the Grand National.
Not a single suspect has been identified or held beyond the "somebody in Russia being protected by the Putin régime" line that suffers, lets face it, a credibility gap wider than the Grand Canyon. Grand Nationals and Canyons, you see: the governmental classes believe in Big when it comes to fibbing....as indeed they do in most things.
Boris Johnson attempted to start World War III by called the World Cup "an attempt to do what Hitler did with the 1936 Olympics". This morning - in the light of Novichok II - May's security minister Ben Wallace told Sky News that "the World Cup is not about politics, it is about extraordinary athletes doing extraordinary things". Bit of a difference in emphasis there? Surely not. After all, BoJo said he would boycott the tournament.....but then changed his mind once England started winning.
As regards this new case, it is now Thursday, the cops and Special Branch have been on it for 5 days, and the certainties were elucidated thus by the rather dull Mr Wallace today: "We don't know exactly where the couple went last weekend and we haven't as yet located any next of kin, but we think at some time on Saturday or perhaps Sunday it's not clear, they may have gone to a hog roast. But what's clear from what we know so far is that this was not an attack as such, and may well be some left-over Novichok from the previous incident." That's up there with Peter Cook's memorable sketch about Inspector Streeb-Greebling and the Great Train Robbery of 1963: "I should like to reassure the public that no train has been stolen, merely the money substances it was carrying".
Wallace then went on to say the UK had requested help from the Putin government and this had been refused. I'm sorry, but that is a blatant lie: the Russians offered full cooperation to the Foreign Office, and they rebuffed it - for reasons which remain the subject of richly-deserved speculation.
Every day for eight days on the trot during the Skripal affair, we were treated to the sight of yet more "expert" nerve agent clean-up Johnnies kitted out to the gills, and it now turns out that the clean-up was in fact a f**k-up, because they missed a bit. The way you do.
So the Government's insistence that Salisbury was a safe zone afterwards was also a load of cobblers....as a result of which two more people are now in Salisbury hospital being treated by staff subjected to yet more D-Notice threats about not talking the evil press - who are "just poking about in things that don't concern them", as Prince Andrew is wont to remark.
'Amateur night for Baldricks' doesn't even begin to get close to this as a track record, does it? One is reminded of the Jeremy Thorpe conspiracy Judge - also satirised by Cook - who said in a sketch devised by Peter, "I turn now to evidence of blah-blah....a man who could not even organise the simplest murder plot without cocking it up". How we miss Cookie, and what a ball he'd be having with all this make-believe if he were still made flesh.
But it's the clean-up-cock-up connection that has made me think again about how the Skripal affair got started in the first place.
There are several things that have always bothered me beyond any other doubts in relation to the Salisbury caper:
It has been largely assumed by the media that the Skripals were and are British agents. In fact, as they had already been turned by MI5, there is no reason at all to believe firmly in their loyalty to any single sovereign. Are they simply still loyal to the Russian Federation?
I always felt that their decision to settle in England almost within walking distance of the Portan Down Chemical Warfare facility was stretching coincidence somewhat. Did Russian controllers ask them to settle there?
The timing of the attack never made any sense at all in the light of Russia's need to dilute a developing Russophobic narrative by using the World Cup as a showpiece.
When Johnson, May, Trump and Macron turned the incident into an excuse to bomb Syria as "a warning" to Putin, they did so by accusing Assad of chemical warfare on his own People. Objectively, the kindest thing one can say about that accusation is that it too made no sense, and a variety of "experts" on the scene have said in unison that they have found no evidence of such an attack having occurred.
Suppose that Slog's Law of Cock-up producing Cover-up turned to Cocker-ups' advantage applies here?
That is to say, let's suggest that the real centre of the original Black Op was Portan Down itself. That Sergei Skripal had fed the facility via his British controllers with stolen "formulae" obtained by his still active daughter Yulia. This was in fact for 'Novichok' -which the Russians could use as bait, as it was no longer of interest to them: having once been New Stuff, it was now Obsolete Stuff.
But then something alerted either the Porton Down scientists or MI5 to the fact that the Skripals were still RF agents. By this time, Boris Johnson was properly installed as Foreign Secretary with May (still close to the security services following her Home Office stint) in Number Ten. They were briefed that there was a problem.
And indeed it was a problem, for the Skripals had outwitted UK military intelligence...and thus there had been a massive security breach which had to be disguised as something else.
So somewhere along the line, somebody - the CIA maybe - got involved and came up with the idea of making the best of a bad job....by killing the Skripals with "Russian" nerve agent, blaming it on Putin, and using his close alliance with alleged chemical weapon beast Assad to enable the NATO bombing of key Syrian air force installations....and thus pass advantage on to his enemies - who were being bankrolled by the Pentagon, the CIA, John McCain and a host of other psychos.
But as always, the experts f**ked up. The dose the newly revealed traitors got was nowhere near strong enough to kill them....perhaps even because their Russian controllers had deliberately falsified the formula they fed to MI5 via Yulia Skripal.
And then down the road, the chemical clear-up was screwed up as well. Which brings us to where we are today.
Now obviously, this is informed guesswork, and there could be many points where my theory here is at fault.
I ask you only this: does it strike you as more or less credible than the Dan-Dare-meets-Flash-Gordon bollocks we've all been asked to swallow up until now?
Let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time that government incompetence has been turned to geopolitical advantage via opportunist lies.
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 06 July 2018
reply | edit & publish | delete
government hay
t's time that we all familiarised ourselves with the Ministerial Code that ministers are supposedly required to adhere to! After all, if you or I breached our terms and conditions of employment we would face serious disciplinary proceedings that could result in the termination of our employment. (1.3c is the relevant section in McLie's case).
MINISTERIAL CODE
1
MINISTERS OF THE CROWN
General principle
1.1
Ministers of the Crown are expected to maintain high
standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.
1.2 Ministers should be professional in all their dealings and treat all those with whom they come into contact with
consideration and respect. Working relationships,
including with civil servants, ministerial and parliamentary
colleagues and parliamentary staff should be proper and
appropriate. Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or
discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not
consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.
1.3
The Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life. They are expected to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life
set out at Annex A, and the following principles of Ministerial conduct:
a.
The principle of collective responsibility applies to
all Government Ministers;
b.
Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies;
c.
It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers
who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;
d.
Ministers should be as open as possible with
Parliament and the public, refusing to provide
information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000;
e.
Ministers should similarly require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their direction to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of civil servants as set out in the Civil
Service Code;
f.
Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests;
g.
Ministers should not accept any gift or hospitality
which might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement or place them under an improper obligation;
h.
Ministers in the House of Commons must keep separate their roles as Minister and constituency Member;
i.
Ministers must not use government resources for Party political purposes; and
j.
Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Codeas set out in the
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
1.4
It is not the role of the Cabinet Secretary or other officials
to enforce the Code. If there is an allegation about a breach of the Code, and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary feels that it warrants further investigation, she will refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests.
1.5
The Code provides guidance to Ministers on how they should act and arrange their affairs in order to uphold these standards. It lists the principles which may apply in particular situations. It applies to all members of the Government and coversParliamentary Private Secretaries in paragraphs 3.7 – 3.12.
1.6
Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.However, Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. She is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.
1.7
Ministers must also comply at all times with the requirements which Parliament itself has laid down in relation to the accountability and responsibility of Ministers. For Ministers
in the Commons, these are set by the Resolution carried on 19 March 1997 (Official Report columns 1046-47), the terms of which are repeated at b. to e. above. For Ministers in the Lords, the Resolution can be found in the Official Reportof 20 March 1997 column 1057. Ministers must also comply with the Codes of Conduct for their respective Houses and also any requirements placed on them by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 06 July 2018
reply | edit & publish | delete
jeffs posts
A new Prime Minister, a new Foreign Secretary, and a major breach of Porton Down security that threatened to become political dynamite for a Conservative Government already struggling to survive after an ill-timed General Election. Is this how the Salisbury Novichok saga started - as a means to cover up incompetence by blaming Putin?
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Nothing is ever this simple, but herewith the Overture: a jaundiced eye applied to the latest Salisbury New Stuff about New Stuff, which by now is seriously Old Hat Stuff.
The unexpectedly good news about England's soccer success thus far (and the Russians turning out to be exemplary World Cup hosts in every way) has got everyone calmed down and in a generally good mood. That plus the best summer for many a long year means that, on the whole, the last thing anyone cares about is NATO and the collective security orgasms of Federica Mogherini. In fact, the only thing irritating the 17.4 million Leave-voting UK adults (that's 52% for the mathematically dyslexic) is that unelected power, bad losers, PR whores like Nina Schick, Care in the Community loons like Baron Astonish and geopolitics are getting in the way of what's left of our democracy.
Tomorrow sees a crunch Cabinet meeting. My hunch is that it will be followed by much smiling and loyalty signalling, but nothing that either the 17.4 million or the Sprouts of Brussels will sign up to.....as things stand. So in order to please the US and its spawn NATO, the spin tempo has been upped a little - and that's almost certainly why we see Novichok back in the headlines, increased public fears about deadly contamination, and Land Rover saying Brexit may well cause them to pull out of the UK. Perhaps the hope is that the harder Brexit cases in the Cabinet can be persuaded (with the help of dire MI5/6 warnings) to accept closer links to the Eutanic than they would prefer.
But as I suggested at the outset, nothing is that simple.....although among the more twisted minds in the Big Vauxhall Box, it may well be one dimension of what's going on here.
In fact, if one analyses the events more closely, what I think we're watching here is part politicians looking for distraction, part gross incompetence on the part of the security and police forces of Britain, part Theresa May trying to box her way out of a mineshaft and - possibly - a new avenue of thinking about how the Salisbury saga got started that has come to light purely by accident.
Just to confuse you further, I want to start at the beginning, by writing about incompetence. I have long held the view (based on experience and memory, not ideology or a vivid imagination) that such conspiracies as exist often start as an attempt to cover up incompetence. We're in a mess not "thanks to" Brexit but because Theresa May's antennae are incompetent, politicians lie nonstop, our Foreign Secretary is incompetent, and police, security forces, military intelligence, the FCO and the Home Office are a truly vomituous mix of self-interested mendacity incapable of catching cholera in a sewer, let alone "terrorists".
Consider the track record before, during and since the Novichok nonsense:
There are now 18,000 jihadists in Britain, and we don't where they are.
After four months on the case, those forces from which we expect expertise got the original Skripal diagnosis wrong, got the injured copper's condition wrong - and stumbled about being "sure" in turn that Ms Skripal's flight baggage, Mr Skripal's car AC system, a park bench and a doorknob were the media used to try and bump them off.
The scientists at Porton Down started by saying they didn't know the identity of the nerve agent for sure, then they became more sure, but not as sure as Boris Johnson said they were, because he's a pathological liar with form as long as the Grand National.
Not a single suspect has been identified or held beyond the "somebody in Russia being protected by the Putin régime" line that suffers, lets face it, a credibility gap wider than the Grand Canyon. Grand Nationals and Canyons, you see: the governmental classes believe in Big when it comes to fibbing....as indeed they do in most things.
Boris Johnson attempted to start World War III by called the World Cup "an attempt to do what Hitler did with the 1936 Olympics". This morning - in the light of Novichok II - May's security minister Ben Wallace told Sky News that "the World Cup is not about politics, it is about extraordinary athletes doing extraordinary things". Bit of a difference in emphasis there? Surely not. After all, BoJo said he would boycott the tournament.....but then changed his mind once England started winning.
As regards this new case, it is now Thursday, the cops and Special Branch have been on it for 5 days, and the certainties were elucidated thus by the rather dull Mr Wallace today: "We don't know exactly where the couple went last weekend and we haven't as yet located any next of kin, but we think at some time on Saturday or perhaps Sunday it's not clear, they may have gone to a hog roast. But what's clear from what we know so far is that this was not an attack as such, and may well be some left-over Novichok from the previous incident." That's up there with Peter Cook's memorable sketch about Inspector Streeb-Greebling and the Great Train Robbery of 1963: "I should like to reassure the public that no train has been stolen, merely the money substances it was carrying".
Wallace then went on to say the UK had requested help from the Putin government and this had been refused. I'm sorry, but that is a blatant lie: the Russians offered full cooperation to the Foreign Office, and they rebuffed it - for reasons which remain the subject of richly-deserved speculation.
Every day for eight days on the trot during the Skripal affair, we were treated to the sight of yet more "expert" nerve agent clean-up Johnnies kitted out to the gills, and it now turns out that the clean-up was in fact a f**k-up, because they missed a bit. The way you do.
So the Government's insistence that Salisbury was a safe zone afterwards was also a load of cobblers....as a result of which two more people are now in Salisbury hospital being treated by staff subjected to yet more D-Notice threats about not talking the evil press - who are "just poking about in things that don't concern them", as Prince Andrew is wont to remark.
'Amateur night for Baldricks' doesn't even begin to get close to this as a track record, does it? One is reminded of the Jeremy Thorpe conspiracy Judge - also satirised by Cook - who said in a sketch devised by Peter, "I turn now to evidence of blah-blah....a man who could not even organise the simplest murder plot without cocking it up". How we miss Cookie, and what a ball he'd be having with all this make-believe if he were still made flesh.
But it's the clean-up-cock-up connection that has made me think again about how the Skripal affair got started in the first place.
There are several things that have always bothered me beyond any other doubts in relation to the Salisbury caper:
It has been largely assumed by the media that the Skripals were and are British agents. In fact, as they had already been turned by MI5, there is no reason at all to believe firmly in their loyalty to any single sovereign. Are they simply still loyal to the Russian Federation?
I always felt that their decision to settle in England almost within walking distance of the Portan Down Chemical Warfare facility was stretching coincidence somewhat. Did Russian controllers ask them to settle there?
The timing of the attack never made any sense at all in the light of Russia's need to dilute a developing Russophobic narrative by using the World Cup as a showpiece.
When Johnson, May, Trump and Macron turned the incident into an excuse to bomb Syria as "a warning" to Putin, they did so by accusing Assad of chemical warfare on his own People. Objectively, the kindest thing one can say about that accusation is that it too made no sense, and a variety of "experts" on the scene have said in unison that they have found no evidence of such an attack having occurred.
Suppose that Slog's Law of Cock-up producing Cover-up turned to Cocker-ups' advantage applies here?
That is to say, let's suggest that the real centre of the original Black Op was Portan Down itself. That Sergei Skripal had fed the facility via his British controllers with stolen "formulae" obtained by his still active daughter Yulia. This was in fact for 'Novichok' -which the Russians could use as bait, as it was no longer of interest to them: having once been New Stuff, it was now Obsolete Stuff.
But then something alerted either the Porton Down scientists or MI5 to the fact that the Skripals were still RF agents. By this time, Boris Johnson was properly installed as Foreign Secretary with May (still close to the security services following her Home Office stint) in Number Ten. They were briefed that there was a problem.
And indeed it was a problem, for the Skripals had outwitted UK military intelligence...and thus there had been a massive security breach which had to be disguised as something else.
So somewhere along the line, somebody - the CIA maybe - got involved and came up with the idea of making the best of a bad job....by killing the Skripals with "Russian" nerve agent, blaming it on Putin, and using his close alliance with alleged chemical weapon beast Assad to enable the NATO bombing of key Syrian air force installations....and thus pass advantage on to his enemies - who were being bankrolled by the Pentagon, the CIA, John McCain and a host of other psychos.
But as always, the experts f**ked up. The dose the newly revealed traitors got was nowhere near strong enough to kill them....perhaps even because their Russian controllers had deliberately falsified the formula they fed to MI5 via Yulia Skripal.
And then down the road, the chemical clear-up was screwed up as well. Which brings us to where we are today.
Now obviously, this is informed guesswork, and there could be many points where my theory here is at fault.
I ask you only this: does it strike you as more or less credible than the Dan-Dare-meets-Flash-Gordon bollocks we've all been asked to swallow up until now?
Let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time that government incompetence has been turned to geopolitical advantage via opportunist lies.
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 06 July 2018
reply | edit & publish | delete
government hay
t's time that we all familiarised ourselves with the Ministerial Code that ministers are supposedly required to adhere to! After all, if you or I breached our terms and conditions of employment we would face serious disciplinary proceedings that could result in the termination of our employment. (1.3c is the relevant section in McLie's case).
MINISTERIAL CODE
1
MINISTERS OF THE CROWN
General principle
1.1
Ministers of the Crown are expected to maintain high
standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.
1.2 Ministers should be professional in all their dealings and treat all those with whom they come into contact with
consideration and respect. Working relationships,
including with civil servants, ministerial and parliamentary
colleagues and parliamentary staff should be proper and
appropriate. Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or
discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not
consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.
1.3
The Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life. They are expected to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life
set out at Annex A, and the following principles of Ministerial conduct:
a.
The principle of collective responsibility applies to
all Government Ministers;
b.
Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies;
c.
It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers
who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;
d.
Ministers should be as open as possible with
Parliament and the public, refusing to provide
information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000;
e.
Ministers should similarly require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their direction to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of civil servants as set out in the Civil
Service Code;
f.
Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests;
g.
Ministers should not accept any gift or hospitality
which might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement or place them under an improper obligation;
h.
Ministers in the House of Commons must keep separate their roles as Minister and constituency Member;
i.
Ministers must not use government resources for Party political purposes; and
j.
Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Codeas set out in the
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
1.4
It is not the role of the Cabinet Secretary or other officials
to enforce the Code. If there is an allegation about a breach of the Code, and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary feels that it warrants further investigation, she will refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests.
1.5
The Code provides guidance to Ministers on how they should act and arrange their affairs in order to uphold these standards. It lists the principles which may apply in particular situations. It applies to all members of the Government and coversParliamentary Private Secretaries in paragraphs 3.7 – 3.12.
1.6
Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.However, Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. She is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.
1.7
Ministers must also comply at all times with the requirements which Parliament itself has laid down in relation to the accountability and responsibility of Ministers. For Ministers
in the Commons, these are set by the Resolution carried on 19 March 1997 (Official Report columns 1046-47), the terms of which are repeated at b. to e. above. For Ministers in the Lords, the Resolution can be found in the Official Reportof 20 March 1997 column 1057. Ministers must also comply with the Codes of Conduct for their respective Houses and also any requirements placed on them by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 06 July 2018
reply | edit & publish | delete
jeffs posts
A new Prime Minister, a new Foreign Secretary, and a major breach of Porton Down security that threatened to become political dynamite for a Conservative Government already struggling to survive after an ill-timed General Election. Is this how the Salisbury Novichok saga started - as a means to cover up incompetence by blaming Putin?
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Nothing is ever this simple, but herewith the Overture: a jaundiced eye applied to the latest Salisbury New Stuff about New Stuff, which by now is seriously Old Hat Stuff.
The unexpectedly good news about England's soccer success thus far (and the Russians turning out to be exemplary World Cup hosts in every way) has got everyone calmed down and in a generally good mood. That plus the best summer for many a long year means that, on the whole, the last thing anyone cares about is NATO and the collective security orgasms of Federica Mogherini. In fact, the only thing irritating the 17.4 million Leave-voting UK adults (that's 52% for the mathematically dyslexic) is that unelected power, bad losers, PR whores like Nina Schick, Care in the Community loons like Baron Astonish and geopolitics are getting in the way of what's left of our democracy.
Tomorrow sees a crunch Cabinet meeting. My hunch is that it will be followed by much smiling and loyalty signalling, but nothing that either the 17.4 million or the Sprouts of Brussels will sign up to.....as things stand. So in order to please the US and its spawn NATO, the spin tempo has been upped a little - and that's almost certainly why we see Novichok back in the headlines, increased public fears about deadly contamination, and Land Rover saying Brexit may well cause them to pull out of the UK. Perhaps the hope is that the harder Brexit cases in the Cabinet can be persuaded (with the help of dire MI5/6 warnings) to accept closer links to the Eutanic than they would prefer.
But as I suggested at the outset, nothing is that simple.....although among the more twisted minds in the Big Vauxhall Box, it may well be one dimension of what's going on here.
In fact, if one analyses the events more closely, what I think we're watching here is part politicians looking for distraction, part gross incompetence on the part of the security and police forces of Britain, part Theresa May trying to box her way out of a mineshaft and - possibly - a new avenue of thinking about how the Salisbury saga got started that has come to light purely by accident.
Just to confuse you further, I want to start at the beginning, by writing about incompetence. I have long held the view (based on experience and memory, not ideology or a vivid imagination) that such conspiracies as exist often start as an attempt to cover up incompetence. We're in a mess not "thanks to" Brexit but because Theresa May's antennae are incompetent, politicians lie nonstop, our Foreign Secretary is incompetent, and police, security forces, military intelligence, the FCO and the Home Office are a truly vomituous mix of self-interested mendacity incapable of catching cholera in a sewer, let alone "terrorists".
Consider the track record before, during and since the Novichok nonsense:
There are now 18,000 jihadists in Britain, and we don't where they are.
After four months on the case, those forces from which we expect expertise got the original Skripal diagnosis wrong, got the injured copper's condition wrong - and stumbled about being "sure" in turn that Ms Skripal's flight baggage, Mr Skripal's car AC system, a park bench and a doorknob were the media used to try and bump them off.
The scientists at Porton Down started by saying they didn't know the identity of the nerve agent for sure, then they became more sure, but not as sure as Boris Johnson said they were, because he's a pathological liar with form as long as the Grand National.
Not a single suspect has been identified or held beyond the "somebody in Russia being protected by the Putin régime" line that suffers, lets face it, a credibility gap wider than the Grand Canyon. Grand Nationals and Canyons, you see: the governmental classes believe in Big when it comes to fibbing....as indeed they do in most things.
Boris Johnson attempted to start World War III by called the World Cup "an attempt to do what Hitler did with the 1936 Olympics". This morning - in the light of Novichok II - May's security minister Ben Wallace told Sky News that "the World Cup is not about politics, it is about extraordinary athletes doing extraordinary things". Bit of a difference in emphasis there? Surely not. After all, BoJo said he would boycott the tournament.....but then changed his mind once England started winning.
As regards this new case, it is now Thursday, the cops and Special Branch have been on it for 5 days, and the certainties were elucidated thus by the rather dull Mr Wallace today: "We don't know exactly where the couple went last weekend and we haven't as yet located any next of kin, but we think at some time on Saturday or perhaps Sunday it's not clear, they may have gone to a hog roast. But what's clear from what we know so far is that this was not an attack as such, and may well be some left-over Novichok from the previous incident." That's up there with Peter Cook's memorable sketch about Inspector Streeb-Greebling and the Great Train Robbery of 1963: "I should like to reassure the public that no train has been stolen, merely the money substances it was carrying".
Wallace then went on to say the UK had requested help from the Putin government and this had been refused. I'm sorry, but that is a blatant lie: the Russians offered full cooperation to the Foreign Office, and they rebuffed it - for reasons which remain the subject of richly-deserved speculation.
Every day for eight days on the trot during the Skripal affair, we were treated to the sight of yet more "expert" nerve agent clean-up Johnnies kitted out to the gills, and it now turns out that the clean-up was in fact a f**k-up, because they missed a bit. The way you do.
So the Government's insistence that Salisbury was a safe zone afterwards was also a load of cobblers....as a result of which two more people are now in Salisbury hospital being treated by staff subjected to yet more D-Notice threats about not talking the evil press - who are "just poking about in things that don't concern them", as Prince Andrew is wont to remark.
'Amateur night for Baldricks' doesn't even begin to get close to this as a track record, does it? One is reminded of the Jeremy Thorpe conspiracy Judge - also satirised by Cook - who said in a sketch devised by Peter, "I turn now to evidence of blah-blah....a man who could not even organise the simplest murder plot without cocking it up". How we miss Cookie, and what a ball he'd be having with all this make-believe if he were still made flesh.
But it's the clean-up-cock-up connection that has made me think again about how the Skripal affair got started in the first place.
There are several things that have always bothered me beyond any other doubts in relation to the Salisbury caper:
It has been largely assumed by the media that the Skripals were and are British agents. In fact, as they had already been turned by MI5, there is no reason at all to believe firmly in their loyalty to any single sovereign. Are they simply still loyal to the Russian Federation?
I always felt that their decision to settle in England almost within walking distance of the Portan Down Chemical Warfare facility was stretching coincidence somewhat. Did Russian controllers ask them to settle there?
The timing of the attack never made any sense at all in the light of Russia's need to dilute a developing Russophobic narrative by using the World Cup as a showpiece.
When Johnson, May, Trump and Macron turned the incident into an excuse to bomb Syria as "a warning" to Putin, they did so by accusing Assad of chemical warfare on his own People. Objectively, the kindest thing one can say about that accusation is that it too made no sense, and a variety of "experts" on the scene have said in unison that they have found no evidence of such an attack having occurred.
Suppose that Slog's Law of Cock-up producing Cover-up turned to Cocker-ups' advantage applies here?
That is to say, let's suggest that the real centre of the original Black Op was Portan Down itself. That Sergei Skripal had fed the facility via his British controllers with stolen "formulae" obtained by his still active daughter Yulia. This was in fact for 'Novichok' -which the Russians could use as bait, as it was no longer of interest to them: having once been New Stuff, it was now Obsolete Stuff.
But then something alerted either the Porton Down scientists or MI5 to the fact that the Skripals were still RF agents. By this time, Boris Johnson was properly installed as Foreign Secretary with May (still close to the security services following her Home Office stint) in Number Ten. They were briefed that there was a problem.
And indeed it was a problem, for the Skripals had outwitted UK military intelligence...and thus there had been a massive security breach which had to be disguised as something else.
So somewhere along the line, somebody - the CIA maybe - got involved and came up with the idea of making the best of a bad job....by killing the Skripals with "Russian" nerve agent, blaming it on Putin, and using his close alliance with alleged chemical weapon beast Assad to enable the NATO bombing of key Syrian air force installations....and thus pass advantage on to his enemies - who were being bankrolled by the Pentagon, the CIA, John McCain and a host of other psychos.
But as always, the experts f**ked up. The dose the newly revealed traitors got was nowhere near strong enough to kill them....perhaps even because their Russian controllers had deliberately falsified the formula they fed to MI5 via Yulia Skripal.
And then down the road, the chemical clear-up was screwed up as well. Which brings us to where we are today.
Now obviously, this is informed guesswork, and there could be many points where my theory here is at fault.
I ask you only this: does it strike you as more or less credible than the Dan-Dare-meets-Flash-Gordon bollocks we've all been asked to swallow up until now?
Let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time that government incompetence has been turned to geopolitical advantage via opportunist lies.
Posted by jeffrey davies [82.9.81.48] on 06 July 2018
reply | edit & publish | deletegovernment hay
t's time that we all familiarised ourselves with the Ministerial Code that ministers are supposedly required to adhere to! After all, if you or I breached our terms and conditions of employment we would face serious disciplinary proceedings that could result in the termination of our employment. (1.3c is the relevant section in McLie's case).
MINISTERIAL CODE
1
MINISTERS OF THE CROWN
General principle
1.1
Ministers of the Crown are expected to maintain high
standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.
1.2 Ministers should be professional in all their dealings and treat all those with whom they come into contact with
consideration and respect. Working relationships,
including with civil servants, ministerial and parliamentary
colleagues and parliamentary staff should be proper and
appropriate. Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or
discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not
consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.
1.3
The Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life. They are expected to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life
set out at Annex A, and the following principles of Ministerial conduct:
a.
The principle of collective responsibility applies to
all Government Ministers;
b.
Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies;
c.
It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers
who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;
d.
Ministers should be as open as possible with
Parliament and the public, refusing to provide
information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000;
e.
Ministers should similarly require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their direction to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of civil servants as set out in the Civil
Service Code;
f.
Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests;
g.
Ministers should not accept any gift or hospitality
which might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement or place them under an improper obligation;
h.
Ministers in the House of Commons must keep separate their roles as Minister and constituency Member;
i.
Ministers must not use government resources for Party political purposes; and
j.
Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Codeas set out in the
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
1.4
It is not the role of the Cabinet Secretary or other officials
to enforce the Code. If there is an allegation about a breach of the Code, and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary feels that it warrants further investigation, she will refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests.
1.5
The Code provides guidance to Ministers on how they should act and arrange their affairs in order to uphold these standards. It lists the principles which may apply in particular situations. It applies to all members of the Government and coversParliamentary Private Secretaries in paragraphs 3.7 – 3.12.
1.6
Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.However, Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. She is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.
1.7
Ministers must also comply at all times with the requirements which Parliament itself has laid down in relation to the accountability and responsibility of Ministers. For Ministers
in the Commons, these are set by the Resolution carried on 19 March 1997 (Official Report columns 1046-47), the terms of which are repeated at b. to e. above. For Ministers in the Lords, the Resolution can be found in the Official Reportof 20 March 1997 column 1057. Ministers must also comply with the Codes of Conduct for their respective Houses and also any requirements placed on them by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 06 July 2018
jeffs posts
A new Prime Minister, a new Foreign Secretary, and a major breach of Porton Down security that threatened to become political dynamite for a Conservative Government already struggling to survive after an ill-timed General Election. Is this how the Salisbury Novichok saga started - as a means to cover up incompetence by blaming Putin?
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Nothing is ever this simple, but herewith the Overture: a jaundiced eye applied to the latest Salisbury New Stuff about New Stuff, which by now is seriously Old Hat Stuff.
The unexpectedly good news about England's soccer success thus far (and the Russians turning out to be exemplary World Cup hosts in every way) has got everyone calmed down and in a generally good mood. That plus the best summer for many a long year means that, on the whole, the last thing anyone cares about is NATO and the collective security orgasms of Federica Mogherini. In fact, the only thing irritating the 17.4 million Leave-voting UK adults (that's 52% for the mathematically dyslexic) is that unelected power, bad losers, PR whores like Nina Schick, Care in the Community loons like Baron Astonish and geopolitics are getting in the way of what's left of our democracy.
Tomorrow sees a crunch Cabinet meeting. My hunch is that it will be followed by much smiling and loyalty signalling, but nothing that either the 17.4 million or the Sprouts of Brussels will sign up to.....as things stand. So in order to please the US and its spawn NATO, the spin tempo has been upped a little - and that's almost certainly why we see Novichok back in the headlines, increased public fears about deadly contamination, and Land Rover saying Brexit may well cause them to pull out of the UK. Perhaps the hope is that the harder Brexit cases in the Cabinet can be persuaded (with the help of dire MI5/6 warnings) to accept closer links to the Eutanic than they would prefer.
But as I suggested at the outset, nothing is that simple.....although among the more twisted minds in the Big Vauxhall Box, it may well be one dimension of what's going on here.
In fact, if one analyses the events more closely, what I think we're watching here is part politicians looking for distraction, part gross incompetence on the part of the security and police forces of Britain, part Theresa May trying to box her way out of a mineshaft and - possibly - a new avenue of thinking about how the Salisbury saga got started that has come to light purely by accident.
Just to confuse you further, I want to start at the beginning, by writing about incompetence. I have long held the view (based on experience and memory, not ideology or a vivid imagination) that such conspiracies as exist often start as an attempt to cover up incompetence. We're in a mess not "thanks to" Brexit but because Theresa May's antennae are incompetent, politicians lie nonstop, our Foreign Secretary is incompetent, and police, security forces, military intelligence, the FCO and the Home Office are a truly vomituous mix of self-interested mendacity incapable of catching cholera in a sewer, let alone "terrorists".
Consider the track record before, during and since the Novichok nonsense:
There are now 18,000 jihadists in Britain, and we don't where they are.
After four months on the case, those forces from which we expect expertise got the original Skripal diagnosis wrong, got the injured copper's condition wrong - and stumbled about being "sure" in turn that Ms Skripal's flight baggage, Mr Skripal's car AC system, a park bench and a doorknob were the media used to try and bump them off.
The scientists at Porton Down started by saying they didn't know the identity of the nerve agent for sure, then they became more sure, but not as sure as Boris Johnson said they were, because he's a pathological liar with form as long as the Grand National.
Not a single suspect has been identified or held beyond the "somebody in Russia being protected by the Putin régime" line that suffers, lets face it, a credibility gap wider than the Grand Canyon. Grand Nationals and Canyons, you see: the governmental classes believe in Big when it comes to fibbing....as indeed they do in most things.
Boris Johnson attempted to start World War III by called the World Cup "an attempt to do what Hitler did with the 1936 Olympics". This morning - in the light of Novichok II - May's security minister Ben Wallace told Sky News that "the World Cup is not about politics, it is about extraordinary athletes doing extraordinary things". Bit of a difference in emphasis there? Surely not. After all, BoJo said he would boycott the tournament.....but then changed his mind once England started winning.
As regards this new case, it is now Thursday, the cops and Special Branch have been on it for 5 days, and the certainties were elucidated thus by the rather dull Mr Wallace today: "We don't know exactly where the couple went last weekend and we haven't as yet located any next of kin, but we think at some time on Saturday or perhaps Sunday it's not clear, they may have gone to a hog roast. But what's clear from what we know so far is that this was not an attack as such, and may well be some left-over Novichok from the previous incident." That's up there with Peter Cook's memorable sketch about Inspector Streeb-Greebling and the Great Train Robbery of 1963: "I should like to reassure the public that no train has been stolen, merely the money substances it was carrying".
Wallace then went on to say the UK had requested help from the Putin government and this had been refused. I'm sorry, but that is a blatant lie: the Russians offered full cooperation to the Foreign Office, and they rebuffed it - for reasons which remain the subject of richly-deserved speculation.
Every day for eight days on the trot during the Skripal affair, we were treated to the sight of yet more "expert" nerve agent clean-up Johnnies kitted out to the gills, and it now turns out that the clean-up was in fact a f**k-up, because they missed a bit. The way you do.
So the Government's insistence that Salisbury was a safe zone afterwards was also a load of cobblers....as a result of which two more people are now in Salisbury hospital being treated by staff subjected to yet more D-Notice threats about not talking the evil press - who are "just poking about in things that don't concern them", as Prince Andrew is wont to remark.
'Amateur night for Baldricks' doesn't even begin to get close to this as a track record, does it? One is reminded of the Jeremy Thorpe conspiracy Judge - also satirised by Cook - who said in a sketch devised by Peter, "I turn now to evidence of blah-blah....a man who could not even organise the simplest murder plot without cocking it up". How we miss Cookie, and what a ball he'd be having with all this make-believe if he were still made flesh.
But it's the clean-up-cock-up connection that has made me think again about how the Skripal affair got started in the first place.
There are several things that have always bothered me beyond any other doubts in relation to the Salisbury caper:
It has been largely assumed by the media that the Skripals were and are British agents. In fact, as they had already been turned by MI5, there is no reason at all to believe firmly in their loyalty to any single sovereign. Are they simply still loyal to the Russian Federation?
I always felt that their decision to settle in England almost within walking distance of the Portan Down Chemical Warfare facility was stretching coincidence somewhat. Did Russian controllers ask them to settle there?
The timing of the attack never made any sense at all in the light of Russia's need to dilute a developing Russophobic narrative by using the World Cup as a showpiece.
When Johnson, May, Trump and Macron turned the incident into an excuse to bomb Syria as "a warning" to Putin, they did so by accusing Assad of chemical warfare on his own People. Objectively, the kindest thing one can say about that accusation is that it too made no sense, and a variety of "experts" on the scene have said in unison that they have found no evidence of such an attack having occurred.
Suppose that Slog's Law of Cock-up producing Cover-up turned to Cocker-ups' advantage applies here?
That is to say, let's suggest that the real centre of the original Black Op was Portan Down itself. That Sergei Skripal had fed the facility via his British controllers with stolen "formulae" obtained by his still active daughter Yulia. This was in fact for 'Novichok' -which the Russians could use as bait, as it was no longer of interest to them: having once been New Stuff, it was now Obsolete Stuff.
But then something alerted either the Porton Down scientists or MI5 to the fact that the Skripals were still RF agents. By this time, Boris Johnson was properly installed as Foreign Secretary with May (still close to the security services following her Home Office stint) in Number Ten. They were briefed that there was a problem.
And indeed it was a problem, for the Skripals had outwitted UK military intelligence...and thus there had been a massive security breach which had to be disguised as something else.
So somewhere along the line, somebody - the CIA maybe - got involved and came up with the idea of making the best of a bad job....by killing the Skripals with "Russian" nerve agent, blaming it on Putin, and using his close alliance with alleged chemical weapon beast Assad to enable the NATO bombing of key Syrian air force installations....and thus pass advantage on to his enemies - who were being bankrolled by the Pentagon, the CIA, John McCain and a host of other psychos.
But as always, the experts f**ked up. The dose the newly revealed traitors got was nowhere near strong enough to kill them....perhaps even because their Russian controllers had deliberately falsified the formula they fed to MI5 via Yulia Skripal.
And then down the road, the chemical clear-up was screwed up as well. Which brings us to where we are today.
Now obviously, this is informed guesswork, and there could be many points where my theory here is at fault.
I ask you only this: does it strike you as more or less credible than the Dan-Dare-meets-Flash-Gordon bollocks we've all been asked to swallow up until now?
Let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time that government incompetence has been turned to geopolitical advantage via opportunist lies.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 06 July 2018
Jeffs Posts
Theresa May is a girl who likes to please. She tries to please the House of Commons, the House of Lords, both wings of the Conservative Party, the EC negotiators in Brussels, and the 17.4 million majority voters who put a cross next to 'Leave'. It could be called a collaborationist attempt to embrace The Many Not the Few. In reality, it is the same cowardice as that displayed by those who collaborated with the Nazis in Europe after May 1940.
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Leaks from several sources - on Twitter, at the BBC and in Brussels - are suggesting that Theresa May has signed an EU Council document granting the UK the right to stay in the European Union and keep its MEPs after March 29th 2019 if no Brexit "deal" has been achieved by then.
If you're naive and suffering from primary senses deprivation, you will see this as a sound insurance policy to fall back on. If you're a Remainer, you will see it as a massive victory. If you want to "Leave" the EU, then the only thing you should see in this news (if confirmed) is a large flashing red light.
A degree in human nature is not required in order to ask the following highly pertinent questions:
Is this an open invitation to Brussels to keep on keeping on with its policy of rejection alongside raising questions nobody can solve?
Does this give carte blanche to every Baron Adonis to keep on repeating that it is OK to ignore the People's Will?
Is this another excuse for everyone from Belgium to Finland to turn down any "agreed" deal for gratuitously spurious reasons?
The reality of this May signature - and I think we now need a categorical denial from Number Ten if it's just another baseless rumour - is that it delivers exactly what the EUnatics want: a continuing inflow of UK contributions into infinity while every proposal is debated to destruction.
This recent Matt cartoon makes the point with amusing clarity:
MattEU
During the last eight years of Theresa at the Home Office and then in Number Ten, I think we have established beyond any reasonable doubt that she is a stranger to the linked values of liberty, clarity, judgement, bravery, decency and compassion necessary if we are to rescue and restore what's left of our democracy.
Above all - coming down to Earth here - the conclusion on Mrs May has to be that she is more slippery than snot on a glass doorknob. You'd have an easier job lassoing ether than you would tying her down to a meaningfully consistent policy objective.
But in a little over 36 hours, she will face a Cabinet Crunch meeting. Foolishly, she has trailed the document for discussion (on our future relationship with the EU) as "the best of all worlds".
When it comes to real Brexit, there is no such thing. Whatever she proposes, it cannot please Remainiacs, purist Brexiteers and Brussels bullies all at the same time.
Only a change of Government without an election is going to achieve that. Such a government would be in a doomed minority in the Commons....and therein lies the truly insoluble brain-teaser Theresa May faces: the UK political class is woefully out of touch with the British electorate.
Nothing and nobody can hide that for much longer.
are we ever going to see us out hmmm
Posted by jeffrey davies on 04 July 2018
