Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "The London Standard" channel.

  1. This would be the same John Healey who announced cuts in British military spending not so long ago, I assume?
    193
  2. I agree. In my own dealings and negotiations with Shop Stewards and Union Officials in the 1980s, one consistent feature was that, whether in my opinion they were being reasonable or unreasonable, they believed they were arguing for the best interests of their members. This person doesn't seem to have the slightest interest at all in the welfare of the members of the Federation he ran.
    24
  3.  @Fercough  'I admire his brain power.' Not to mention his self-control!
    21
  4. Is it correct that there was a deeply moving moment at the end, when SNP MSPs formed a guard of honour for Humsa as he walked from the building, before he graciously accepted a lift home in Sturgeon's shiny new camper van?
    16
  5. I thought Bogerd was bad, but this creature is on a totally different level.
    14
  6. Whatever your opinion of Zelensky, the idea that Ukraine can actually defeat Russia is about as credible as that of Belgium defeating Germany in 1940. Like it or not, this war must end by negotiation.
    8
  7.  @johnwainwright6205  Unfortunately, the previous two, Kelly Tolhurst and Pat MacFadden, demonstrated a similar level of irrelevance. It seems that, if these people represent the norm, the Civil Service, not those elected by the public, are the ones making all the decisions.
    7
  8. She seems determined to refer to 'The Board', The Post Office' and 'The Business.' None of these things have consciousness, or make decisions. However, people within them do. In most cases, these 'people' were actually one person, Paula Vennells.
    6
  9.  @kitfrew9983  Didn't the Clan Yousaf fight bravely for Bonnie Prince Charlie at Culloden?
    6
  10. I did read somewhere that she has the largest collection of completed 1000 piece jigsaw puzzles and sudoku books in the UK. As, apparently, none of her staff ever told her anything, she must have found something to fill her time in the big office with the large desk and the comfy chair, after all.
    6
  11.  @stevec6427  Professional criticism of policy is part of the game. Vicious personal character attacks are something else.
    6
  12. I think that Larry the Downing Street cat is comparatively rational, although I suspect he isn't allowed near the Cabinet for that very reason.
    6
  13. One hopes that action will be taken against all forms of violent & disruptive behaviour, but one has, given Starmer's record to date, considerable doubts about the possibility.
    5
  14.  @WhichDoctor1  As the UK Defence Journal put it, after Healey's November cuts :- 'Defence Secretary John Healey has announced the retirement of several ageing military assets, including Royal Navy ships, drones, and helicopters, as part of a broader effort to modernise the UK’s Armed Forces and address significant financial pressures in the defence budget.' The broader effort is simply Mr. Healey saying that there will be 'Jam Tomorrow' for the Armed Forces, as these 'modernisations are, in reality, several years away.
    5
  15. The impression I received was that he ran the Federation as his own personal Fiefdom.
    5
  16.  nannieg7622  No. Justin Welby did. Not most members of the C of E.
    4
  17.  @blackwaterposeidonthewhipp7730  All I saw was someone who was determined to be confrontational throughout.
    4
  18. What, not a Life Peerage? She would thrive in the House of the Living Dead.
    4
  19.  @MrAndrewFarrow  I think that the suggestion was simply that each Minister should have done the job which he/she was paid, handsomely, to do. Do you consider that really too much to expect?
    4
  20. Yer karn't 'elp larfing, can yer?
    3
  21.  @dave9997  Not really. He wouldn't know how to work one anyway.
    3
  22. It would be so much easier, as well as cutting out the middleman.
    2
  23. You forgot the 'my people are very clever. They tell me what to do, and I do it.' The same applied to Tolhurst, MacFadden, & Davey, of course.
    2
  24. Sarcasm doesn't come across well in writing.
    2
  25.  @Francoop4  Then I apologise. Instead, you have my pity, mingled with my contempt.
    2
  26. Perhaps you lack understanding of how such an investigation works? The footage is part of the evidence relevant to that investigation, and will not be available until it has been examined. I wonder if you have simply made your mind up anyway?
    2
  27. Unfair. He was moved from stamp-licking duties because of his habit of licking the wrong side of the stamp.
    2
  28.  @firstname4865  I don't think that was what the post actually said? Actually, all four ministers used the same self-justifying excuse, that 'my people are very smart and tell me what to do, say, and think. I am, as a Minister, very busy, and shouldn't be expected to think for myself. That is why I signed all those letters in the bottom of my Red Box without bothering to read them.'
    2
  29.  @firstname4865  Surely, the point was that she didn't act. She was in receipt of a polite letter from Alan Bates simply asking for a meeting to let him explain the SPMs' side of the story. She refused because her 'people' told her not to meet him. If Ministers are such unquestioning little souls, what purpose do they serve? It rather suggests that Civil Servants are running the country, rather than those supposedly elected to run it.
    2
  30. Perhaps the fact that Mr. Dunks was quite happy to claim knowledge which he did not have, and present false statements to courts based on little more than pre-written templates, thus resulting in the convictions of a number of innocent people, has escaped you?
    2
  31. Barristers generally ask questions to which they already know the answer. However, I didn't see one of them either raising his/her voice, probably because they already knew the kind of creature with which they were dealing.
    2
  32. How do we know that?
    2
  33. The fact is that he was the Federation. It was his own little fiefdom.
    2
  34.  @qwertypoiuy355  You have a credible source, I assume?
    2
  35.  @stevec6427  'I disagree.' You think anyone cares whether you disagree or not?
    2
  36. He managed to convey his feelings about Thomson, without obviously showing any of them.
    2
  37. I was on the other side, but in my own dealings and negotiations with Shop Stewards and Union Officials in the 1980s, one consistent feature was that, whether in my opinion they were being reasonable or unreasonable, they believed they were arguing for the best interests of their members. This person doesn't seem to have the slightest interest at all in the welfare of the members of the Federation he ran.
    2
  38. Wouldn't it be interesting if details and statistics of prosecutions of SPMs in pre Horizon days were to be made available? Particularly, the nature of the evidence upon which the prosecutions were founded, Once Horizon was in place, the primary evidence seems to be that, when the prosecutors were asked if their victims were thieves, the POL lawyers simply said 'Yes. Computer says so.'
    2
  39.  @MYCROFTonX  'North Korea calls itself a democracy, it was but isn't now.' The only similarity I can detect between North Korea and the Federation is that both were (and in the former case still is) run by a dictator who cared not a jot for his members/citizens. Do you really think that the role of a Trade Body is to safeguard itself whilst ignoring the concerns of the members of the body?
    2
  40.  @MYCROFTonX  'The NFSP had one job as a safeguard for SPMRs investment, anyone or anything that dragged down POL also dragged down it's members.' You repeat this nonsensical phrase over and over again. Are you really George Thomson trying to defend the indefensible?
    2
  41.  @MYCROFTonX  'he could only work by being close to POL.' Do you mean 'he could only ensure that the Federation would continue to exist by being unswervingly loyal to POL, whatever the circumstances.
    2
  42.  @dmob881  The more I, as an independent observer, read the parrot-like responses of this person, the more I suspect that it is actually George trying to justify himself! Surely the bottom line, which he refuses to address, must be, if an organisation places continued existence ahead of the concerns and welfare of the members of that organisation, then is it really fit for purpose. I believe everyone except Mycroft would be able to answer that question.
    2
  43.  @MYCROFTonX 'He was safeguarding his members life savings by ensuring that it didn't all go bad on them.' Being deprived of your livelihood, having to pay large amounts to POL under false pretences, and in some cases going to prison, is having your life savings safeguarded? You needn't continue to prove yourself delusional. I think that we have all deduced the fact by now.
    2
  44. 'If I'd been told, I'd have given her a slap or two. After all, orders is orders.'
    1
  45. Interestingly, I hve tried to find that out, with no success.
    1
  46. Sarcasm doesn't always work in writing.
    1
  47.  @DerrickJenkins-s6c  I agree. In my own dealings and negotiations with Shop Stewards and Union Officials in the 1980s, one consistent feature was that, whether in my opinion they were being reasonable or unreasonable, they believed they were arguing for the best interests of their members. This person doesn't seem to have the slightest interest at all in the welfare of the members of the Federation he ran.
    1
  48. Initially, I suspected that this was not the real Inquiry, but a clever satire involving look-alikes. The creature pretending to be the former General Secretary of the HFSP was quite incredible. As it wasn't satire, I wonder how such a thing could have attained such a position? Surely the role needed someone who had rather more attributes than the ability to be abusive, threatening, bullying, and rude, all at the same time. The over-riding impression was of someone who ran the Federation as his own personal fiefdom, and was quite happy to sell out anyone and everyone in pursuit of Post Office money. He seemingly assumed that any sub postmasters or mistresses who were prosecuted or punished by his owners the Post Office deserved what they got, because Horizon was 'Robust' and therefore they were stealing from it. What an absolutely detestable piece of (sub) humanity. I wonder how he will be assessed by Sir Wyn in the final report?
    1
  49.  @trmm763  But does that really justify Thomson totally ignoring the concerns of Federation members?
    1
  50.  @trmm763  It isn't that POL were not 'effectively challenged.' It is the fact that they were not challenged at all. At least not by the Federation. George simply chose to ignore the concerns of Federation members, preferring simply to brand them liars and thieves. All in the cause of preserving his beloved Federation, and, of course, his salary.
    1