Davkaus Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 I'm not sure how to interpret the letter, it could be him using his position to help absolve staff in his department of blame. Unprecedented times, that's for sure. This government were always going to tear the Union and our international reputation to shreds. They're well on their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 So I presume that if this, admitted, rule-breaking goes to the Supreme Court he will back them and not call them remainer judges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 Absolute bastards, to a man. Yes, we get to decide our laws. They're not stupid enough to think our parliament gets to decide international law, they just hope a lot of the public are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 28 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I'm not sure how to interpret the letter, it could be him using his position to help absolve staff in his department of blame. That's basically it - it's similar to ministerial direction. So if a minister wants to do something that directly contradicts civil service advice then they are asked to put in writing to "direct" the civil servant to do it. Meaning it's on the record that it was the politician wot done it and the staff can't be blamed when it goes wrong. This is basically Jonathan Jones doing that for the whole civil service. Or the legal department anyway. I'm sure that @Mandy Lifeboats will be able to correct my layman's interpretation if I have that wrong... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 10, 2020 Moderator Share Posted September 10, 2020 12 minutes ago, ml1dch said: That's basically it - it's similar to ministerial direction. So if a minister wants to do something that directly contradicts civil service advice then they are asked to put in writing to "direct" the civil servant to do it. Meaning it's on the record that it was the politician wot done it and the staff can't be blamed when it goes wrong. This is basically Jonathan Jones doing that for the whole civil service. Or the legal department anyway. I'm sure that @Mandy Lifeboats will be able to correct my layman's interpretation if I have that wrong... I sort of get the only following orders line, but it being publically known 2 days earlier that you resigned, knowing this position to be utter bollocks doesn't have any bearing on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 (edited) 54 minutes ago, bickster said: He's resigned but is sending letters out in his name that he knows to be an incorrect position (legally speaking) so much so it's what he actually resigned over. I'm not sure that the statement he's sending out is an incorrect position or that he's done this with a gun to his head. The DAG take is this (it's the last tweet in a thread going through the statement): Edited September 10, 2020 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 I am starting to wonder how far they can push things before a general strike is on the cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 10, 2020 Moderator Share Posted September 10, 2020 9 minutes ago, snowychap said: The DAG take is this (it's the last tweet in a thread going through the statement): How very illuminating, thanks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I am starting to wonder how far they can push things before a general strike is on the cards. I think you're overestimating how much cut-through this sort of thing has outside of niche corners of the Internet. I reckon for every ten random people asked about this subject, one will be furious, one will be elated, one will be neither of those but will find it interesting, three won't really care and four won't care to such an extent that they don't even know that it's happening. And if they did they wouldn't care. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 11 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I am starting to wonder how far they can push things before a general strike is on the cards. 3 minutes ago, ml1dch said: I think you're overestimating how much cut-through this sort of thing has outside of niche corners of the Internet. I reckon for every ten random people asked about this subject, one will be furious, one will be elated, one will be neither of those but will find it interesting, three won't really care and four won't care to such an extent that they don't even know that it's happening. And if they did they wouldn't care. Half price burgers in October should damp down any thoughts of revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 (German ambassador to the UK) I imagine BMW are riding the UKs rescue right now, as promised. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 The Tories are very comfortably playing a hand that has won before. Last year, when the Supreme Court overturned the proroguing of Parliament, the Tories - with the ever-willing help of their friends throughout the media - effortlessly portrayed it as unelected, unaccountable establishment fuddy-duddies thwarting the people's will to leave the EU. Now, the inevitable rejection of this bill in the Lords will fill that exact template again. The Lords will be the unelected fuddy-duddies, not Lady Hale, and this bill will be the barely-understood step to Brexit rather than proroguing Parliament, but the fundamental dynamic is the same, and of the fairly small proportion of the population even noticing that something is happening, the majority will conclude that dastardly remainers are trying to sabotage the process again. There is no winning on this issue. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, ml1dch said: I think you're overestimating how much cut-through this sort of thing has outside of niche corners of the Internet. I reckon for every ten random people asked about this subject, one will be furious, one will be elated, one will be neither of those but will find it interesting, three won't really care and four won't care to such an extent that they don't even know that it's happening. And if they did they wouldn't care. It's not the random people who would be striking though, it's civil servants and most of them will be fully aware. Unfortunately it would just give the government more popular opinion from the ill informed to ban legal strikes. Edited September 10, 2020 by Sam-AVFC 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted September 11, 2020 Share Posted September 11, 2020 (edited) 11 hours ago, ml1dch said: That's basically it - it's similar to ministerial direction. So if a minister wants to do something that directly contradicts civil service advice then they are asked to put in writing to "direct" the civil servant to do it. Meaning it's on the record that it was the politician wot done it and the staff can't be blamed when it goes wrong. This is basically Jonathan Jones doing that for the whole civil service. Or the legal department anyway. I'm sure that @Mandy Lifeboats will be able to correct my layman's interpretation if I have that wrong... 100% correct. I am a civil servant myself. On numerous occasions I have used the “instruct me in writing” tactic. Most of the time it prompts the person to have a second look at their instruction and seek advice from others. But ultimately it gives me protection if things go wrong. But.... Civil Servants should never break the law even if instructed to do so. If you think you might there’s a procedure where you can log the matter. You will then receive a legal opinion from the department’s legal team. This effectively becomes the legal stance of the entire department and the Secretary of State (SOS) who can over-rule his own legal team if he wants to. I’ve issued the formal process once in 33 years. Being directed in writing by your department and therefore the SOS himself gives you personal legal protection that is water tight 99.9999999% of the time. Edited September 11, 2020 by Mandy Lifeboats Speeling mishsteaks 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post snowychap Posted September 11, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted September 11, 2020 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted September 11, 2020 Share Posted September 11, 2020 Good. **** Boris and **** the UK. We deserve to be screwed to the wall 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 11, 2020 Share Posted September 11, 2020 Hadn't seen this before: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 11, 2020 Moderator Share Posted September 11, 2020 Could have been for here or the Tory Thread but... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted September 11, 2020 Share Posted September 11, 2020 'He says no time for questions' That I can believe. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 12, 2020 Share Posted September 12, 2020 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts