As the results came in, the pattern was clear and, for Labour activists, painfully familiar. Keir Starmer, the man elected to stop the bleed in the party’s so-called red wall, was instead presiding over yet more red ruin. Boris Johnson’s Conservatives had not only captured the totemic Westminster seat of Hartlepool – a Labour constituency since its inception – but a slew of English council seats from County Durham to Dudley were turning from red to blue.Despite a scramble to manage expectations by Labour HQ, there could be no glossing over the fact these were terrible results, with Starmer rejected by much of its previous working-class base. Starmer did not quell speculation he will embark on a reshuffle in response to the drubbing, telling reporters on Friday his party has “lost the trust of working people” and he will do “whatever it takes” to restore it. So, who might he look to in order to shake things up? Here are some of the options. On The Way Up Wes Streeting Viewed as a rising star hungry to do battle with the Tory benches, the shadow schools minister grew up in a council flat in Stepney and went on to study at Cambridge. A moderate and vocal critic of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Streeting has become a close ally of Starmer’s in recent months, repeatedly taking to the airwaves to defend the party’s new direction.As the country recovers from coronavirus, Labour may see the Tories as vulnerable on social mobility and the widening opportunity gap between rich and poor. It is for this reason, many tip Streeting to take the education brief from Kate Green, who some feel has failed to land blows on Gavin Williamson despite the A-Levels fiasco and a series of cuts.  “Wes would be Gavin Williamson’s worst nightmare,” said one Labour source. It is also possible, however, that Streeting’s confident media performances could be placed in a more strategic role, such as shadowing Michael Gove’s Cabinet Office role.  His previous support for the People’s Vote campaign could hamper his chances, however, with Starmer keen to draw a line under Brexit. Rachel Reeves Widely tipped to replace Annaliese Dodds as shadow chancellor, Leeds West MP Reeves is one of the few shadow ministers with previous frontbench experience. Seen as on the right of the party, Reeves served in Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet and is seen as having won trust and respect among those the left by leading the campaign against “Tory sleaze”.  Though still controversial with some in her party because of past comments on benefits, her frequent media appearances are testament to Starmer’s faith in her abilities. A former economist for the Bank of England and British Embassy in Washington, Reeves is not thought to have any competition if Starmer is searching for a new face to take on Rishi Sunak at the despatch box. Jess Phillips  One of Starmer’s most high-profile frontbenchers, the shadow domestic violence minister led party calls for action after Sarah Everard’s murder. The Birmingham Yardley MP has a forthright style and, though Starmer may view her as something of a loose cannon, he is said to highly prize her work campaigning on homelessness, domestic killings and violence against women. Phillips, who was the moderates’ candidate for leadership when Corbyn stepped down, is also a strong communicator, both online and on broadcast, and comfortable with the “red wall” voters Starmer fears the party has lost touch with. The 39-year-old has previously voiced an ambition to be home secretary, which is a brief Starmer may consider for her, but possible alternatives may be shadow equalities secretary. She may also be considered for the role of shadow employment rights secretary should Starmer wish to move Corbyn ally Andy McDonald.On the way out? Anneliese DoddsStarmer’s choice for shadow chancellor, the most important appointment for any leader, has attracted regular criticism. Her allies point out her difficult task in facing Rishi Sunak while the occupant of Number 11 has handed out huge sums of cash via the furlough scheme and other Covid support. But many feel Dodds has failed to nail her opponent when he was weak on free school meals cuts, the Eat Out To Help Out debacle and the Greensill Capital scandal. Prevaricating over whether Labour would back a wealth tax and hiring a former advisor of John McDonnell’s also fanned concerns about whether she was suitable. Demoting his own pick for such a crucial job would inevitably invite criticism of Starmer’s judgement, however, and Dodds is well-liked and viewed as knowledgeable among MPs. But, equally, if Starmer refused to consider a move, he may face the charge of tinkering around the edges. Jonathan AshworthThe shadow health secretary has been in post since 2016 and was appointed by Corbyn, despite not sharing the former leader’s left-wing outlook. Sources have suggested Starmer is keen for a reset on health policy, especially as the NHS is traditionally Labour’s strongest campaign issue and Johnson’s approach to social care may soon be a key dividing line. Others have underlined that sacking Ashworth, whose current knowledge of the brief is likely to be unrivalled, during the pandemic would be a misstep. Questions over whether Ashworth has briefed against Starmer and his staff to journalists have been swirling, however. “He is acting like he has already lost his job,” said one source. Liz Kendall, Justin Madders, Rosena Allin-Khan and Lucy Powell are among the names touted as his replacement. Emily ThornberryRelations between the shadow trade secretary and Starmer are thought to have been rocky in recent months. Starmer demoted his leadership rival from her role as shadow foreign secretary last year and there are suggestions he could go further. Despite her combative scrutiny of Liz Truss, Thornberry has been increasingly sidelined in recent months, rarely, if ever, appearing on the media. Her previous comments about the St George’s flag are also seen by Starmer’s allies as undermining the party’s attempts to appear more patriotic. It is possible she is offered an alternative role as shadow leader of the Commons, should long-serving Valerie Vaz wish to move on, but it’s not clear Thornberry would accept. Starmer might consider bringing in a well-known “big beast” as her replacement, such as former shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn. What else could Starmer do?Starmer will be desperate to show working class voters he is listening and may look to boost the role of Wigan MP and shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy. Her policy work on reviving the party’s offer to towns is highly rated and sources say he is keen for her to be seen on broadcast media more often. A sideways move to the Home Office role, replacing Nick Thomas-Symonds, to shadow Priti Patel may be on the cards. It would see Nandy front and centre of efforts to make the party credible on issues like crime and immigration, something vital to securing support in the red wall. Deputy leader Angela Rayner’s role as elections chief has also been questioned, with some saying she lacks experience of marginal battles. Others lay the blame for defeats at the door of former Darlington MP Jenny Chapman, Starmer’s campaign chief, though the leader is said to remain loyal to her.Ian Murray, who is helping Anas Sarwar to lead a resurgence in Scotland, and Chris Bryant, whose local party has ousted Plaid Cymru’s former leader Leanne Wood in the Rhondda in the Welsh assembly elections, are said to have strong cases for expanded attacking roles. Should Rachel Reeve’s potential elevation to shadow chancellor create a vacancy as shadow minister for the Cabinet Office, Starmer will need a strategic brain. He may choose one of his key allies, such as Steve Reed or Bridget Phillipson, to battle Michael Gove. Rayner may also be approached. It is a high-profile spot that entails building on the success Reeves has had scrutinising Johnson’s rule-breaking in the wake of the cash for curtains scandal and questions over PPE contracts. It is not clear whether Marsha de Cordova’s position as shadow equalities minister is safe, despite fears about the optics of removing a black, disabled woman from his top team.Others in line for promotion include Sarah Jones, who is currently shadow policing minister, and Chi Onwurah, who has long been tipped for shadow business secretary. It is unlikely, however, that Ed Miliband will relinquish his climate change responsibilities ahead of the COP 26 conference.Alison McGovern, shadow sports minister and Wirral MP, and Alex Norris may be asked to step up if Starmer’s reshuffle is wide-ranging. Related...Labour Councillor Filmed ‘Pilfering’ Tory Election Leaflet From LetterboxHere’s What’s At Stake In The ‘Super Thursday’ ElectionsUnite Urged to Stop Being Starmer's 'Backseat Driver' By Union Leadership Contender
6
The government has been condemned for its slow response to the cladding scandal after a fire at a London block covered in the same flammable material as Grenfell Tower left than 40 people in need of medical treatment.London Fire Brigade said two adults had gone to hospital after suffering the effects of smoke inhalation and a further 38 adults and four children were treated at the scene after the fire ripped through the 19-storey New Providence Wharf development, near Canary Wharf, on Friday morning.Approximately 22% of the building’s facade features aluminium composite material polyethylene (ACM PE) cladding panels, which were found to be a key factor in the 2017 Grenfell fire.The latest official figures show that 111 residential buildings in England have yet to have ACM fully removed almost four years after the disaster, which killed 72 people. In the wake of the fire, the government vowed that dangerous cladding would be replaced on all high rise buildings by June 2020. By that time, 300 buildings were still vulnerable.Some 358 buildings no longer have ACM cladding systems after the government committed £5 billion to make buildings safe, but the scandal has since widened as a plethora of faults have been found in people’s homes and more types of cladding have been deemed unsuitable.There are 111 high-rise residential and publicly-owned buildings still with ACM cladding systems unlikely to meet building regulations in England." src="https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/60954fb4260000e360b427c3.png?ops=scalefit_630_noupscale" />Labour’s shadow housing secretary Thangam Debbonaire said: “The government must take full responsibility. Ministers promised this dangerous cladding would all be removed by June last year. They failed to keep this promise.“It is a disgrace that, four years on, this tower still had the same cladding as Grenfell – and four years on, we are yet again seeing the horrifying results of inaction.”Survivors and bereaved relatives from Grenfell have told the government “enough is enough”.Survivors’ and relatives’ group Grenfell United said in a statement: “We are horrified by the news of the fire at the New Providence Wharf today. When will the government take this scandal seriously? Enough is enough.“The government promised to remove dangerous cladding by June 2020 – it has completely failed its own target and every day that goes by lives are at risk. Today more people have lost their homes in another terrifying fire.“The government needs to treat this as an emergency and stop stonewalling residents who are raising concerns. No more games, no more excuses.”Damage to a 19-storey tower block in New Providence Wharf, east London." src="https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/60954b9c2100000a577f1033.jpg?ops=scalefit_630_noupscale" />The cladding crisis has deepened during a stand-off between developers, private freeholders, who own the buildings, and government over who is responsible for removing the flammable material.In the meantime, blameless freeholders who own the flats have been left with a financial and emotional burden, which gets worse each day.Aside from the fear of living in a building liable to catch fire, an increasing number of buildings have been forced to introduce expensive 24/7 fire patrols to stay safe. In February, HuffPost UK revealed 794 blocks of flats in England and Wales have so-called “waking watches” in place, which are costing some individuals as much as £1,500 a month – the same as a  second mortgage payment.We reported last week how the government has failed to recover a penny of the £450m it is giving to landlords to fix unsafe cladding – despite promising to get tough with those responsible for installing the highly dangerous material.Last week, the government’s Fire Safety Bill, introduced in response to the deadly 2017 blaze, is set to leave hundreds of thousands of leaseholders paying to remove dangerous cladding from their buildings.Although the Government had insisted that leaseholders would not bear the cost of removing the flammable materials, critics say the Bill will leave people liable for costs of up to £50,000. Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said: “The spectre of the tragedy at Grenfell still hangs over our city. Today we have seen again why residents in buildings with flammable cladding are living in fear.“It is vital that government, developers, building owners and regional authorities work together to urgently remove the cladding from every affected building.”Work to replace the cladding was “under way” and the main contractor had been due to take possession of the site on Monday, according to building developer Ballymore.Pictures and videos on social media show part of the building engulfed in flames, with thick grey smoke pouring out of the block, several stories high.One resident posted on Instagram: “When your building has the same cladding as Grenfell Tower. Oh my god.”The fire comes just days after the introduction of the Government’s post-Grenfell fire safety regulations, which campaigners argue could leave leaseholders paying tens of thousands of pounds to remove cladding on their buildings. Firefighters at the scene in New Providence Wharf in London." src="https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/60954ba321000005577f1035.jpg?ops=scalefit_630_noupscale" />Fire Brigades Union general secretary Matt Wrack said: “It is extremely alarming to see another high-rise building in the heart of London light up in flames.“It should shame this Government that four years on from Grenfell, there are people across the country living in buildings wrapped in flammable cladding.“Time and time again we’ve warned that another Grenfell could be just around the corner unless they prioritise making people’s homes safe.“The pace of removing flammable cladding has been glacial and it’s putting people’s lives at risk. The Government must intervene and take quick and decisive action to end our building safety crisis once and for all.”LFB said parts of the eighth, ninth and 10th floors were alight on the building, adding that it had received 13 calls to the fire.It added: “The brigade was called at 0855. Fire crews from Poplar, Millwall, Shadwell, Plaistow, Whitechapel and surrounding fire stations are at the scene.“The cause of the fire is not known at this stage.”Apsana Begum, the Poplar & Limehouse Labour MP, said: “For years now, constituents at New Providence Wharf, where there are 1,500 apartments, have been left vulnerable and unsafe due to numerous fire safety and building safety defects and the fact that ACM cladding remains on these buildings.“The fire this morning shows just how serious this issue is and why constituents have been right to continue to raise alarm bells for so many months and having met with them again I know just how terrified they must be feeling at this time.”“The developer Ballymore have promised action, but to date, constituents have not received information on fire engineer reports and details of any remediation works.”She added: “It is simply not good enough for developers to say that they cannot act or that they are and then do nothing. They must act now and the government must act now and hold them accountable in order to protect residents.”Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, tweeted: “My thoughts and prayers are with everyone affected by this awful fire – and with all those for whom it stirs memories and fears.“It is simply a national scandal that more has not been done by Government to remove this dangerous cladding.”Ballymore said in a statement: “Our thoughts are with everyone who has been affected by this morning’s fire at New Providence Wharf.“The safety of our residents is paramount and we are working closely with the London Fire Brigade.“We can confirm that the fire was quickly brought under control by the Fire Brigade and is now extinguished. Our response team are on-site to support residents and assist with alternative accommodation where necessary.“We will update once we have more information.”Related...Cladding Culprits Are Getting £450m From The Taxpayer. They Haven't Repaid A PennyCladding Scandal Grows As Expensive Fire Patrols Almost Double In A YearGovernment Misses Deadline To Remove All Grenfell-Style Cladding
5
Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge TikTok announced two new integrations for its app on Thursday: sharing audio back into TikTok using the new Sound Kit, and using your TikTok account to log in to other apps with Login Kit. Developers can apply to use the new SDKs to insert the short-form video app’s content in even more places, but they may open the company and its users to new privacy concerns. The basic features of Login Kit will sound familiar. Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat already offer similar integrations to speed up the logging in process. Like those other versions, TikTok says that using Login Kit will allow users to securely log in to other apps, but also let developers offer TikTok content inside those apps, like adding videos to a dating profile. Using Login... Continue reading…
1
Toensing and diGenova have been Republican fixtures for decades and were instrumental in the Ukraine scandal that led to Trump's first impeachment.
6
WARNING. This article contains spoilers of the highest order.  The hunt for “H” is finally over. Yes, after a four-year wait, we now know that DSU Ian Buckells was Line Of Duty’s mystery baddie all along. The bent copper, who had been helping to lead a clandestine network of corrupt police officers in league with organised crime, was unmasked during Sunday night’s blockbuster series finale.Many other long-running storylines also wrapped up during the episode, as Gail Vella’s killer was confirmed and Superintendent Ted Hastings revealed the true story behind Lee Banks, John Corbett and the £50k sum of money.If your head is still spinning trying to take all the information in, here’s a full recap... The first big development of the episode saw DI Steve Arnott finally attend a medical appointment where he revealed the truth about his reliance on painkillers, and was asked to surrender his firearms licence, before telling Hastings about what had been going on.  After this came the revelation that a lockbox had been found beneath the OCG’s gun workshop floor.Inside it was the workshopped pistol used to kill Gail Vella, as well as clothes and gloves belonging to the shooter, which DNA testing proved was Carl Banks. Also in the box were the knives that killed PC Maneet Bindra and undercover officer John Corbett, both of which had Ryan Pilkington’s prints on. The knife the OCG used to kill Jackie Laverty in series one was also recovered, with DCI Tony Gates’ prints on it – although we already knew the OCG planted his prints on the weapon so they could use it as leverage to coerce him into working with them. While questioning if there was any evidence that related to Marcus Thurwell or Ian Buckells, Arnott also mentioned Chief Constable Philip Osborne’s name, much to the shock of DS Chris Lomax…Back at AC-12, it was discovered that Marcus Thurwell was indeed dead – despite the fan theories – as the bodies of him and his wife were formally identified, having been strangled to death at their Spanish villa a number of weeks earlier. At the property, police found devices that had made contact with DCI Jo Davidson and OCG member Lisa McQueen. However, it turned out that the communication actually originated in the UK and was routed via Spain so that the IP would be a decoy, and Thurwell used as a stooge.Specialist Technician Amanda Yao then arrived with news of a recent message that had just been intercepted, with the sender saying Jo Davidson was “definately” high risk. The misspelling spiked AC-12’s suspicions as it matched the way “the fourth man” had spelled “definitely” when in contact with Lisa McQueen in series five. As a result, DC Chloe Bishop was asked to go through all the Operation Lighthouse and Lawrence Christopher files to see if there were any reports filed by officers that contained the same misspelling. As Hastings, Fleming and Arnott rushed to Blackthorn Prison to try and get Davidson to safety, they discovered a production order had been issued calling for Davidson to attend an interview at Hillside Lane station, which had supposedly been co-signed by DS Chris Lomax and DI Fleming. Realising it had been forged, they rushed to find the convoy Davidson had been taken on with corrupt prison officers. After managing to intercept it, Arnott and Fleming planted themselves in the van, and continued with the route, where they were ambushed by OCG who were ready to kill Davidson. However, the balaclava-clad men were quickly apprehended and the corrupt prison officers arrested.  With Davidson having been taken to safety, she was interviewed by Fleming and Arnott who offered her witness protection if she were to give up the “fourth man”. Davidson then said former OCG boss Tommy Hunter (who was both her uncle and her father) had told her that her father was a bent police officer, who she was made to fear and take orders from. This man was revealed to be former officer and known peadophile Patrick Fairbank, who is serving time for his involvement in the Sands View Boys Home scandal. However, after a search of his prison cell found nothing, it became clear that Hunter had manipulated Davidson into thinking Fairbank was also the fourth man as well as her father, which he was not. Back at AC-12, Bishop’s review of misspellings the Vella and Christopher files has revealed their real identity, much to the shock of Hastings, Fleming and Arnott. As Hastings went to tell DCS Patricia Carmichael of their breakthrough, Fleming and Arnott warned him against widely publicising their findings, as their own professional conduct would come under scrutiny. It was at this point the pair revealed they knew about Hastings blowing Corbett’s cover and subsequently paying his widow money. Confessing his involvement in the events leading up to Corbett’s death, Hastings maintained that he did not disclose Corbett’s identity to Lee Banks during his visit to Blackthorn Prison in series five, instead telling him that there “was an informant in the OCG” and “no more than that”. This was consistent with Banks’ account that he gave to Arnott. Hastings claimed he wanted to send a warning to Corbett, so that when he found out the OCG knew about a rat he would go to ground. Admitting he knew there was risk to Corbett’s life, Hastings added that he believed Corbett “had to coming to him in spades” as he’d been involved in the death of four officers – including PC Bindra – and had also violently attacked his wife. Hastings said that what he didn’t know at this point was that he was the son of woman he “cared deeply about many years ago” – this woman being Anne Marie McGillis, a CHIS who Hastings got close to when he worked in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He called his actions “his biggest regret”.As for the money, Hastings said he was originally tricked into accepting it (by corrupt former officer Mark Moffatt who was part of the conspiracy to set Hastings up as “H” with Gill Biggeloe in series five), and was blocked from returning it, but it was found before he could hand it in as evidence. He explained he split the £100k into two halves as he realised it was a bribe that could turn nasty, intending to use it as insurance against the OCG if they came looking.With one half of the £50k never found, he then gifted this to Steph Corbett following John’s death by way of atonement, although she remains in the dark about the real version of events that led to her husband’s death. During this conversation, Hastings also revealed Steph had told him about Arnott’s painkiller addiction and that he’d seen to it that Arnott didn’t face disciplinary action.Finally, in what was possibly the longest, most tense reveal in Line Of Duty, the fourth man was finally unmasked. After walking through AC-12 HQ and sitting down at the desk, the camera panned up to reveal DSU Ian Buckells sitting opposite Hastings, Fleming and Arnott. He faced intense questioning about his double life, but various pieces of evidence were produced to confirm he was the final officer leading the clandestine network of corrupt officers in collusion with organised crime. Buckells had proved to be grossly incompetent at his job over the years, but it was this that meant his corruption was never spotted – in fact, he was so convincing that Davidson was even trying to frame him, whilst not realising he was the one actually in charge. “Yeah right, I’m a blundering fool? I’m the one who’s made total mugs out of you lot,” he told AC-12. Buckells then tried to go for immunity by agreeing to co-operate, quoting Osborne and saying that “institutionalised corruption doesn’t officially exist” in Central Police and therefore AC-12 wouldn’t be able to make the charges stick. He revealed that prior to his death, Hunter was always the top man of the OCG, but it then split into disparate groups, with Thurwell and Fairbank initially overseeing control of the network of bent officers, before DI Matthew “Dot” Cotton and ACC Derek Hilton became the top dogs.After their deaths, Buckells was the only one left still serving in the police. He claimed to just take orders from the OCGs, and they kept asking him to sort bigger and bigger affairs, like the Eastfield depot raid in series five. AC-12 put it to him that the OCG didn’t actually order Vella’s murder as they had no real reason to. The only connection they had to her on their side was through Hunter – who is long dead – and his son Darren (who was one of the gang who attacked Lawrence Christopher), who Fleming noted was a “nobody” to the OCG. However, two police officers now involved in the original Christopher investigation were now high-ranking – Buckells and Osborne – meaning they had the most motive to want her dead, as she was beginning to establish links that proved institutionalised corruption in the force.  Buckells was then asked if he colluded with Osborne to have Vella killed, and while he didn’t reply, he was screwed either way – if he declined to help with the investigation, he would be ineligible for witness protection, and by confessing conspiracy to murder, he would then be ineligible for immunity from prosecution. Having wrapped by far their biggest case ever, Fleming and Arnott headed to the pub to celebrate, where Fleming revealed she would accept Hastings’ offer of a job back with AC-12 should he remain as the gaffer. Arnott opened up to his “mate” about his painkiller addiction and revealed he wanted to keep seeing Steph Corbett romantically, but felt torn.Fleming was then seen visiting the department’s medical officer for an unspecified reason. Back at AC-12, Arnott and Fleming revealed to DCS Patricia Carmichael that they were now intending to go after Darren Hunter for his part in Lawrence Christopher’s death in order to get a conviction.Arnott suggested launching an investigation into whether other members of Marcus Thurwell’s team might have been involved in the cover-up of the Lawrence Christopher case, given many of them are still serving officers. Carmichael informed him that such cases “aren’t a priority”. Like Osborne, she refused to entertain the idea there is a problem of institutionalised corruption in the force – something the Chief Constable reiterated in a press conference about finding Gail Vella’s killer, much to Hastings’ disgust. Hastings revealed he would be appealing the decision to push him into early retirement, but as he went to leave the building, he returned to Carmichael’s office and confessed his role in Corbett’s death. “What do you expect me to do with that information?” she asked. “That’s entirely up to you, ma’am,” he replied. “But whatever you do, you do because you care about truth and accountability. You do it because you carry the fire.”A pre-credits sequence then revealed all proceedings against Terry Boyle in Gail Vella’s murder had been dropped and he had been rehoused, while Jo Davidson was granted witness protection and was living with a new parter in an undisclosed location. Darren Hunter was also discovered to be under investigation for Christopher’s murder, while PS Farida Jatri was freed from prison and returned to the police force.  Plans to slimline anti-corruption were also ploughing ahead, with DCS Carmichael remaining in charge of AC-12.“Close colleagues” of the Chief Constable had been appointed to other senior positions in anti-corruption, with AC-12’s powers to curb wrongdoing in public office never weaker, which suggests he is suppressing information.Meanwhile, Central Police submitted an application for public-interest immunity in legal proceedings against Buckells, which means that if it is successful, no evidence about institutionalised corruption would be heard in court. This suggests they don’t want him to face justice as it could expose something much larger...With the photos of Jo Davidson, John Corbett, Roz Huntley, Danny Waldron, Lindsay Denton and Tony Gates packed up into a box at the end of the episode, things looked pretty final for AC-12, leading to questions about whether there will be another series of Line Of Duty.However, there were a lot of loose ends – specifically around Carmichael, Osborne and even Lomax – and the suggestion that there’s a lot more to the Lawrence Christopher case yet to be discovered. All six series of Line Of Duty are available to stream on BBC iPlayer.READ MORE:The 7 Loose Ends The Line Of Duty Finale 'Definitely' Did Not Tie UpWho Is DSU Ian Buckells? The Line Of Duty Character You Need To Know About After Episode 3Martin Compston Hints Line Of Duty Might Not Return After Current Series Finale
1
Boris Johnson should resign if he broke ministerial rules over his Downing Street flat, the Scottish Tory leader has said. The intervention by Douglas Ross came as the the prime minister continued to face questions over whether a Tory donor originally loaned him money to redecorate his official residence. Pressed on whether Johnson should resign if he breached the ministerial code over the so-called “cash for curtains” scandal, Ross said: “Of course.“I think people expect the highest standards of those in the highest office of the land and that’s why people are looking at the investigations that are ongoing and waiting for the answers to be heard.” The prime minister receives an annual public grant of £30,000 to spend on his living quarters, but it has been claimed the final bill for the lavish revamp reached £200,000. Johnson has maintained he “met the cost” of the refurbishment personally, but the Electoral Commission has launched an investigation into whether the PM broke electoral law and £58,000 was loaned. Shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy said it was clear Johnson was “withholding information” from the public.She told Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday: “It’s appalling we are in a position where he won’t come clean about who loaned him money or gave him money, and what favours or promises may have been given in return.“We already know that this is a prime minister who frankly thinks that the rules don’t apply to him and his friends. He is quite happy for his cabinet ministers to break the ministerial code and then not resign, he is quite happy for his advisers to drive around the country with Covid in the middle of lockdown and not resign.The PM lives at Number 11 Downing Street with his partner Carrie Symonds and their baby son Wilfred. There were also fresh claims on Sunday that Johnson asked Tory donors fo fund childcare. Foreign secretary Dominic Raab said he has “no idea” if this were true and dismissed the allegation as “tittle tattle”.He told Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday: “I have no idea, you don’t have conversations like that with the PM. I can’t comment on every little bit of gossip that’s in the newspapers.“The last thing you asked me about, I think, is an example of tittle tattle.”Asked if there was a second invoice for refurbishments of the PM’s Downing Street flat settled directly with a supplier, he said: “As the prime minister has set out this week, he covered the cost himself, he’s followed all the relevant codes of conduct at all relevant times, he took official advice all along the way.“There are three reviews now, I think, into this and I think the right thing for me to do is not add political commentary that could otherwise prejudice those reviews, but to respect the integrity of them, so I’m not going to offer you, I’m afraid, any more commentary, or if you like chatter, on the various different reports and speculation that I see in the Sunday papers.”Related...Why Boris Johnson’s Alleged Sleaze Matters Even If The Polls Don’t Move YetShould Boris Johnson Worry About The Departure Of NHS Chief Simon Stevens?Watchdog Must Carry Out Boris Johnson Flat Probe ‘Quickly’, Senior Tory Says
3
The second installment of the popular reality series Mann Ki Baaz Pratigya was postponed after the show's director Andi Eigenmann announced that there are numerous problems brewing between the show's producers as well as the celebrities.The report did not mention that the specific problems but we can presume that it has something to do with the scandal that rocked the show in the first place.Earlier this month, manager Andi Eigenmann had posted a message on his official Facebook page stating"We are sorry to disappoint our viewers for the next half of our Mann Ki Baaz Pratigya.The show is being postponed because of some complications with all our celebrities.For the time being, we will only have some additional information to share with you in the future" In the exact same post, he also claimed that the next half of the series will be aired next Tuesday, September 8th at 8PM on STAR Plus.Then one of them pointed out at a kid in the crowd and demanded to know that the child was.
2
You’re reading The Waugh Zone, our daily politics briefing. Sign up now to get it by email in the evening.Despite the fire and fury of this week’s prime minister’s questions, it seems the cash for cushions row has so far amounted to little but a pillow fight in the eyes of voters.Several polls in the last 24 hours have shown Tory numbers barely moving, with Labour’s even slightly down despite the sleaze allegations engulfing Boris Johnson.And in a much less scientific test, a red wall Tory MP tells me they have had just 10 emails on the row over the past week from concerned voters.Normally, we might give it a few more days before delivering a judgment on the impact of the row.But the impending local elections next Thursday have led to a painful debate about whether it has had so-called “cut through” with the public.Patrick English of YouGov tells me there is no doubt that it has, with nearly a third (31%) of the public following the story fairly or very closely, and a further 27% following it, if not closely.The depressing truth seems that voters’ trust in politicians generally, and Johnson particularly, is so low that a row like this is “baked in”, says English.“It’s not that they don’t care, or that they don’t want them to do it, they just sort of shrug and say they expect it from politicians.”This has inevitably led to questions about whether Starmer has got his strategy right ahead of his first key electoral test.The red wall Tory tells me the sleaze row is coming up more on the doorstep since Starmer’s evisceration of Johnson at prime minister’s questions.But they wonder if his visit to a John Lewis store on Thursday (Carrie Symonds reportedly described the No.11 flat as a “John Lewis furniture nightmare”) may have been a mis-step, as voters are bringing up the row but in a “jokey” way.Meanwhile, Tory election expert Lord Hayward believes Labour have missed opportunities to speak out on issues “which actually do matter to people now”, with jobs under threat at Liberty Steel in a situation linked to the Greensill lobbying scandal, the Toyoda Gosei factory closure in Rotherham and Nestle closing a factory in Newcastle.Hayward says: “What they’ve been so obsessed with is sleaze, which appears in the immediate not to matter, that even issues that are there and matter to people on a day-by-day basis have actually gone by the board.“And that I find absolutely staggering.”Hayward does, however, believe political events can take a week or so to begin affecting polls, so there is time yet for the Labour leader on sleaze.Looking beyond the local elections too, Starmer will have positioned himself as a leader on the issue if the Electoral Commission or other watchdogs punish Johnson or the Tories over the flat.And the underlying numbers are not great for the PM should things go badly, with a YouGov trust rating of –22 and less than half of Tory voters more inclined to believe Johnson over top aide Dominic Cummings, who is promising to damage the PM at his select committee appearance on May 26.English tells Tories: “I definitely wouldn’t be jubilant.“If it just gets worse or if it does not go away, the figures of who is following it is only going to go up, the figures that say ‘I’m aware of it but I don’t care’ are only going to go down.“That does have the potential to be quite harmful, there’s a lot of potential for this to move quickly in the wrong direction for the Tories.”Meanwhile senior Tories, speaking privately this week, fear the collateral damage caused by the sleaze rows. They worry about what happens to the party’s poll numbers when the twin effects of the vaccine bounce and the furlough life support scheme for jobs end, and if stories like this become more important to voters amid job losses.Some even wonder whether Johnson can still carry out the big reshuffle many believe is coming soon, and will root out incompetence in government.Can you sack Robert Jenrick following cronyism allegations when you yourself are facing them? Can you fire Gavin Williamson for incompetence when you can’t even file your register of interests on time? And if you can’t have a better Cabinet, do we see a repeat of the exams fiasco?Starmer, as my colleague Paul Waugh suggested earlier this week, may be able to promote Johnson from “Major Sleaze” to the potentially far more damaging “General Shambles”.Others also worry that a good performance in the local elections next week in the face of the sleaze row can only breed complacency in Downing Street about the need to improve standards in public office.And that could lead to a very bad place, with faith in politics and politicians already so low.Related...Boris Johnson Will Be 'Ultimate Arbiter' In Probe Into Downing Street Flat RefurbMatt Hancock Totally Refuses To Answer Questions On Boris Johnson’s FlatBoris Johnson Dodges Questions About Who Initially Paid To Refurbish His Flat
2
Successful moving of the bill in the low House of the Congress was, plainly, advertised by a scandal about a rather famous lobbyist Jack Abramoff.It was his effective place that in lots of elements added to failure of the last anti-on-line statement, but at the same time frame after the scandal lots of legislators are attempting to range themselves as a result promoting a fresh bill.Struggle against gaming in the USA is carried out not only on the degree of the country generally, as well as in specific states ufabet72 บาคาร่า.The very first signals appeared in their state of Washington (not to confuse with the money of the USA, the town of Washington which was the first to ever move a unique anti-on-line legislation as an extension of Wire Act.From now on gaming through the Internet or other connection facilities (mobile telephones, arms are meant here and etc) threaten the inhabitants of their state of Washington with an excellent as much as 10 000 dollars and (or) jail for a term around five years.The Legislation took effect on the 7th of July, 2006, however, there has been number instances of their application for two months.One more strike was sent by the USA DOJ.On the 20th of July David Carruthers was arrested, Primary Government of among the greatest on-line gambling businesses BetonSports, at that it occurred in the airport of Texas where David was extracted from the transportation trip from England to Costa-Rica.He was shown a number of accusations, including racket and non-payment of taxes, he was refused to be allow on bail.
Parents generally strive to avoid raising entitled children. But that doesn’t mean they won’t fall into that category themselves.“An entitled parent is a ‘Karent’!” author and The Parenting Mentor founder Susan Groner told HuffPost, sharing a play on the term “Karen,” which has come to evoke pushy people, usually white women, who are rarely satisfied and often demand to speak to managers.Groner noted that many child-rearers among us believe they and their families deserve special treatment, favours, and anything they deem the “best” because they are somehow superior to others by virtue of their economic or social position ― or “just because.”“Being an ‘entitled’ person refers to someone who feels they should have things or get to do things without having to work for it,” said Becky Stuempfig, a licensed marriage and family therapist. “Entitled people believe they deserve special privileges or recognition for things they did not earn.”Suspect your parent may be someone with a strong sense of entitlement? Or trying to avoid this in your own parenting? Below, Groner and Stuempfig, along with other experts, share seven signs you were raised by an entitled parent.They make unreasonable demands.“Being demanding is a sign of an entitled person,” said Craig Knippenberg, a therapist and author of “Wired and Connected: Brain-Based Solutions To Ensure Your Child’s Social and Emotional Success.” “They want to go right to the top instead of dealing with the person at hand. They still feel entitled despite a logical explanation by another party, almost as if they feel wronged.”Parents who are entitled will make unreasonable demands or requests of everyone, including their own kids. “The entitlement is projected onto the child as a set of expectations and belief in perfectionist views of the child,” said psychotherapist Noel McDermott. “Any criticism of the child will be a criticism of the parent. The parent will insist on special treatment for their child and remove their child from opportunities to socialise outside of their tightly controlled social circle.”There’s a sense that the rules don’t apply to them and an expectation for special treatment at restaurants, stores, their children’s school, and their extracurricular activities. If entitled people perceive that others aren’t treating them better than everyone else, they feel important enough to demand it happens.They act out because they believe the world owes them.“Believing that everyone owes them something” is a major sign of an entitled parent, Stuempfig noted. “Entitled parents may seem like they have ‘a chip on their shoulder’ and often be heard complaining about how they were treated unfairly,” she explained. “Many times entitled parents will be seen complaining to people with authority such as managers of stores or restaurants, teachers, principals, and coaches. They may be seen dramatically storming out of social scenes or youth sporting events due to feeling like their child is not being treated correctly.”She added that entitled parents may also engage in extreme behaviour in an effort to have their voice heard ― like yelling, complaining incessantly online, sending harsh emails, or posting rants on social media.This behaviour often leads to feelings of embarrassment and shame in their children. “Nobody enjoys sitting in a room when their parent is berating someone for something they didn’t do, have no control over, or will not do because it’s against rules or procedure,” Groner said.  They don’t show concern for others or their needs.“It’s important for children to be raised to believe that other people’s needs are as important as their own. If a parent is entitled they are likely not modelling that for their children,” said Perri Shaw Borish, a psychotherapist and founder of Whole Heart Maternal Mental Health. “Entitled parents may not be helping their children to understand their place in the larger community and world and their connectedness to those outside of themselves.”A lack of compassion or sensitivity toward others is common in entitled people, and they’re generally not inclined to apologise or make amends for their behaviour when others call them out because they believe they’re always right. They may choose to surround themselves with people they deem worthy or who share their worldview ― furthering limiting their capacity to understand of others’ feelings or realities.  “An entitled parent may be someone who continuously seeks attention, someone who knocks others down to make themselves feel better, gaslighting people when they don’t get what they want, not knowing how to compromise, and generally feeling like they are better than others,” said psychologist Sanam Hafeez.Catherine Athans, a licensed marriage and family therapist and author of “The Heart Brain,” highlighted the way word choices can reveal a sense of entitlement.“They refer to others as ‘them,’” she said. “They rarely refer to people as ‘we.’”  They’re obsessed with accomplishments and status. Entitled parents tend to mention family status and accomplishments frequently, placing an over-emphasis on tangible measures of success. “They may exaggerate their children’s achievements and accomplishments to the detriment of the child and they may also pressure their children rather than encourage and guide their children,” Shaw Borish said. “This can cause a sense of the child not living up to expectations which contributes to self doubt and low self esteem. It’s important for children to feel special in their parents’ eyes but they don’t need to feel special in everyone’s eyes.”In some ways, having entitled parents can make children feel extra inadequate when they don’t win the first-place trophy or make honour roll. In other ways, it may prevent them from developing resilience because their parents do everything they can to remove obstacles to success. “An entitled parent will never accept that their child is at fault for anything,” Groner explained. “They expect their child to be treated as the smartest, most talented child and will fight with teachers, principals, coaches, directors.”Groner gave examples of statements you might hear from an entitled parent: “Why is my child only in the chorus? They deserve the lead role!”; “Don’t even think about benching my child. You better make them a starter”; “My child deserves to be in the gifted class, and I will go all the way to the superintendent if you don’t put them in that class”; “Take that off my child’s record or I will sue.” or even “Change my child’s grade.”The “Operation Varsity Blues” scandal highlighted the lengths entitled parents will go to in order to assure their children gain entry into top-performing schools even if their credentials do not merit admission. The most important thing is that their child is a “winner,” said Stuempfig. “The 2019 college admission bribery scandal is an extreme illustration of how parents with a sense of entitlement often feel they are above the law and will even commit crimes due to their core belief that their child deserves privileges they did not earn,” she noted. They have trouble finding enjoyment in their life. “Another sign that a parent is an entitled person is difficulty finding true enjoyment of their lives,” Stuempfig said. Even if they are in a good position in life, entitled people may believe the opposite is true and have a self-pitying attitude that suggests they are victims of bad circumstances. “Entitled parents often place great value on material objects and tend to spoil their children with all the latest and greatest physical items such as technology, clothes, bikes, cars and so on,” Stuempfig added. “They often attempt to find joy through material objects due to a lack of emotional satisfaction in their relationships and they believe they deserve to have the highest standard in everything.”Having less than everything will breed a sense of dissatisfaction that prevents them from enjoying their day-to-day lives.They don’t have healthy boundaries.“Entitled parents often treat their child’s life as if it’s their own life,” Stuempfig said. “There’s not a healthy separation between parent and child.”It’s important for parents to set healthy boundaries with their children to give them space to develop a sense of self, understand their needs and express them. This lack of boundaries can be damaging for kids, who may feel like they are not important and develop low self-esteem. “Entitled parents may be stingy with their children and their children’s needs because their needs come first,” Athans said. “The pronoun ‘I’ will be used in conversations about anything.”They lack gratitude.Many psychologists tout the importance of practicing gratitude and its impact on mental health. Living in the moment and acknowledging the good things around you is a very powerful and healthy pursuit. But entitled people tend to lack this sense of gratitude. “Entitlement isn’t so much about actual position but more about relationship to position,” said McDermott. “Someone who is entitled will lack gratitude for their good fortune and view anyone who questions their position as bad.”If any of the above characteristics are reminiscent of your parents, know that entitlement is not necessarily a permanent condition, nor does it have to be your genetic fate. We’re all human and have our entitled tendencies from time to time, but expressing gratitude for the positive things in your life is a meaningful first step for combatting the negativity. Related...'Back To Basics': Marcus Rashford's New Project To Fight Food PovertyThe Poignant Stories Behind These Colourful Murals5 Red Flags You're Raising An Entitled Kid
4
From Oscar winners to crowd pleasers, here are the best documentaries on Netflix.
6
At the annual Sun Valley billionaire retreat, the Apple CEO reportedly took aim at Facebook's business model following the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
4
A newfound appreciation for online privacy has pushed the VPN industry to new heights.
2
Comments from Ubben come about one week before a sizable lock-up period expires for Nikola insiders.
1
Attacking “Tory sleaze” will not win the next election for Labour alone and Keir Starmer needs to go on the attack against Boris Johnson, Lord Mandelson has said.The party grandee told HuffPost UK’s Commons People podcast that while Labour’s local election attacks around “cronyism” and the lobbying scandal will “loosen and crumble” Tory support, it will not be enough to win nationally in 2024.Starmer must also present a “credible and attractive alternative”, as well as showing Labour is strong enough to “tear [the Tories] inside out, strip them down, lay them bare, and see what they stand for and what they are not doing for this country”.Mandelson told Commons People: “One thing is clear to me – it’s that Tory sleaze is not going to win the next election for Labour.“It will loosen and crumble a lot of support for the Tories and people will reach the conclusion that they are out for themselves and that they suit themselves and they fill the pockets of their own cronies and supporters, that’s true.“But that doesn’t mean to say that Labour’s just got to sit back and wait for the election to fall into their laps.“That’s not how you win elections. “So fine, make the point, but you’ve got to present a credible and attractive alternative if you want people to vote for you.” Speaking from Hartlepool where he is campaigning for Labour ahead of the crunch May 6 by-election, Mandelson said the party had a “real fight” in the seat, where it was “completely outgunned” by the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote in 2019.Johnson is also benefitting from a “vaccine bounce” in the polls, while voters in Hartlepool felt Labour had “lost its way over the last decade” because it was nationally “rubbish” and “fell into bad hands” locally, and that the party took the town for granted.“Then along came Brexit which loosened the cement even more, and frankly Corbyn then was the final hammer blow for Labour in this town, and then we had the disastrous results in the election in 2019,” he said. But now, he said, they feel “Labour is coming home, that there is a new broom, and they feel it nationally with Keir Starmer and I’m glad to say they feel it locally”.“Increasingly, people are seeing Labour as a credible alternative, they do see Keir Starmer as a man of principles and of integrity.“But they want to know a lot more about him and what he believes in and what the policies of the Labour Party will be at the next election before they are prepared to transfer their allegiance to him and the Labour Party.Pointing out that Labour’s leadership has been “hermetically sealed” from the public due to Covid, he said that now the party has to make its case “with greater intensity, and more speed and more focus than we’ve been doing at any time in the last year”.Asked if Starmer needs to freshen up the shadow cabinet, Mandelson said: “He’ll know what to do when the time comes and I’m not going to start giving him advice or lessons about how he should do his job.“All I know is this – that people want Labour to make the weather.“They want Labour to make the news.“They want the Tories properly taken apart.“If you fall short, if it’s a bit weak, if it’s a bit flabby, if it appears not to know how to use the media well, if it’s not doing its opposition research well and honing its attacks and creating the ammunition, and [having] people strong enough to fire that ammunition in the Tory direction, then people are going to say well, are Labour strong enough?”Mandelson went on: “You don’t win elections by going through the motions, you don’t win elections by saying nice things about yourself.“You’ve got to go for your opponents as well, tear them inside out, strip them down, lay them bare, and see what they stand for and what they are not doing for this country.“And then people will look to you, and when they do look to you, you better have a credible, affordable set of modern policies for people to vote for.“And that’s what Labour’s got to create over the next year or so.”He added: “I want my party to win, I’m fed up of losing, I’m fed up to my back teeth of losing, I want to see my party winning again, and that’s why I’m here and that’s why I work for it.”Related...No.10 Launches Leak Inquiry Into Boris Johnson's Texts With James DysonDavid Cameron’s Greensill Lobbying Was ‘Acceptable’, Minister ClaimsRishi Sunak's Role In Greensill Lobbying Scandal To Be Probed By MPs
9
Boris Johnson told James Dyson that "I am first lord of the Treasury and you can take it that we are backing you to do what you need."
4
YouTube has stopped running ads on James Charles’ channel after the creator was accused of sending sexual messages to minors. Charles apologized on April 1st and acknowledged the accusations. YouTube now says that Charles has violated its “creator responsibility policy,” resulting in the temporary demonetization of his channel. Insider first reported the action and YouTube verified the report with The Verge. The company didn’t clarify how long Charles’ channel would be demonetized. The policy is essentially a catchall that YouTube uses to crack down on creators when their behavior leads to widespread negative attention, even if they haven’t explicitly violated YouTube’s rules. Charles is one of YouTube’s biggest creators with 25.5... Continue reading…
3
Both new and old, here are the best documentaries to binge on Netflix.
10
Line Of Duty really isn’t messing about when it comes to bringing back loads of past characters and names this series, is it?The latest episode of the BBC drama had links to both series one and series three, as DCI Joanne Davidson’s mystery relative was revealed and AC-12 made huge strides into their latest investigation. But if you’re struggling to take all the latest developments in (not to mention that cliffhanger), we’ve sought to untangle the web of connections between characters Tommy Hunter, Marcus Thurwell, Philip Osborne and Patrick Fairbank. Who is Tommy Hunter?The now-deceased Tommy Hunter was the former boss of the organised crime group. Played by Brian McCardie, the character debuted in the first series of Line Of Duty, heading up a network of criminals who were in league with corrupt police officers. One such officer was known as The Caddy, later revealed to future AC-12 recruit DI Matthew ‘Dot’ Cottan. He was recruited for the OCG after working as Hunter’s golf caddy as a child. In the first series, Hunter was behind the attempt to blackmail DCI Tony Gates into cooperating with the OCG, following the murder of Jackie Laverty – Gates’ lover who was also laundering money for Hunter. In the finale, Hunter was eventually arrested by Gates in cooperation with AC-12, and agreed to work with police as an informant in exchange for immunity from prosecution.He reappeared in series two when it was revealed he was the mystery witness that was the target of an ambush of a police convoy.  It was also revealed that The Caddy arranged for the ambush in a bid to silence Hunter and keep his own involvement in the OCG a secret. While Hunter survived the ambush, he was later given a lethal injection in hospital by bent officer DC Jeremy Cole, which killed him.DI Lindsay Denton was used by The Caddy in the plot to kill Hunter, as she had agreed to be part of the ambush after discovering Hunter had been pimping out missing teenager Carly Kirk. She believed she would be helping hand him over to his vengeful criminal associates thinking she would be helping Carly escape her abuser. However, the Caddy set Denton up to take the fall for the ambush.  Hunter cropped up again in series three when Sergeant Danny Waldron named him on a list of people who had abused him as a child while living in the Sands View boys home as a child. Other suspects in the paedophile ring included councillor Dale Roach and police officer Patrick Fairbank.It has now been revealed that Hunter is the brother of MIT’s DCI Joanne Davidson. Who is Marcus Thurwell?DI Marcus Thurwell – set to be played by James Nesbitt – was first mentioned back in series three, when it was revealed he’d led the investigation into the 1998 murder of Oliver Stephens Lloyd – a care worker who was investigating the allegations of abuse at the Sands View boys home. While his death was ruled as a suicide, AC-12 later discovered evidence to reveal he was actually murdered by the OCG, suggesting there had been a cover up on the original investigation.Thurwell’s name cropped up again in series six, when it was revealed journalist Gail Vella had established a link between the Sands View scandal and the 2003 murder of Lawerence Christopher prior to her death. The architect was racially attacked in the street by a gang of white youths, but was mistakenly taken into police custody after a passer-by called 999, where officers laughed and made racist slurs as he lay dying in his cell. Thurwell had been the senior investigating officer on the Christopher case, and he is suspected of a cover up that allowed the suspects of the racist attack on Christopher to escape justice. One of the suspects happened to be the son of former OCG boss Tommy Hunter. From the fact Hunter was involved with the abuse of boys at Sands View, AC-12 deduced that he and Thurwell had an established connection, with Hunter ordering him to sabotage the original inquiry into Christopher’s death to protect his son. Thurwell is now thought to be living in Spain, but reports have suggested that we will be seeing him in action in upcoming episodes... Who is Philip Osborne?Philip Osborne – played by Owen Teale – is the current Chief Constable of Central Police, who recently announced cuts to the force’s anti-corruption units. Osborne was introduced back in series one, when he was working as the leader of the Counter Terrorism Unit, covering up what happened in the killing of Karim Ali. Ali was wrongly identified in a counter-terrorist police raid, which DS Steve Arnott was a part of, and shot dead. Back then, Osborne ordered his officers to lie about what happened in their statements. Arnott refused to co-operate and went to AC-12, leading to him being hired on the team. Despite Arnott testifying against his former colleagues, no officers were prosecuted for their actions.Now the Chief Constable, Osborne ordered the slim-lining of anti-corruption operations following Superintendent Hastings’ decision to charge DSU Ian Buckells under suspicion of being in league with organised crime and obstructing the investigation into journalist Gail Vella’s murder. It has since been revealed that both Osborne and Buckells were on Thurwell’s team on the Lawrence Christopher case, suggesting that they were also involved in the obstruction into the investigation. Who is Patrick Fairbank?Patrick Fairbank – played by George Costigan – is a former Chief Superintendent who made his first appearance in series three. He is a paedophile, having used his position of power to sexually abuse residents at the Sands View boys home, and was also named on Danny Waldron’s list of abusers. Having become involved with organised crime, he was also instrumental in covering up their abuse of young boys at the home, as well as local councillor Dale Roach. Fairbank and Roach were also said to have fictional links to real-life figure Jimmy Savile, who was one of Britain’s most prolific sex offenders. In series three, Fairbank was arrested by Hastings (who had previously been a Mason with Fairbank), but corrupt legal counsel Gill Biggeloe (who was revealed to be in league with the OCG in series five) used his early onset dementia to get him off the charges. However, in the series three finale, DI Cottan recorded a dying declaration that led to the conviction of Fairbank.Cut to the present day, and it was revealed journalist Gail Vella was murdered the night before she planned to visit Fairbank in prison to interview him about police corruption, having established links between the Lawrence Christoper case and the Sands View paedophile ring. Line Of Duty continues on Sunday at 9pm on BBC One. READ MORE:The 12 Burning Questions We Have After Line Of Duty Airs Its Most Tense Cliffhanger EverThe Outcome Of Line Of Duty's Agonising Cliffhanger Might Have Actually Been Solved AlreadyAdrian Dunbar Presenting Have I Got News For You Was Just As Much Of A Mind-Melt As Any Line Of Duty Episode
1
David Cameron’s lobbying of senior ministers and officials, who he knew as prime minister, on behalf of Greensill Capital was “acceptable”, a cabinet minister has claimed.Environment secretary George Eustice, Cameron’s former press secretary, said the ex-PM cannot be “begrudged” for taking on a role lobbying for the now-collapsed finance firm Greensill after leaving office.Eustice also claimed the current system for regulating how ministers declare private sector interests was “actually a pretty good one”.Labour said the minister’s comments showed “the government’s latest approach appears to be to shrug their shoulders and say ‘scandal? What scandal?’” The Tory minister’s defence of Cameron and the rules came after Tory MP Sir Bernard Jenkin, who chairs the Commons liaison committee which questions the prime minister, has also warned that a failure to be “more transparent” than previous governments could see the so-called “red wall” seats turn away from the Tories.A series of probes have been commissioned, including by Downing Street, as Westminster looks to understand the role Cameron played in securing Whitehall access for Greensill.The firm was selected as an intermediary lender for some government Covid-19 support loans at the start of the pandemic.The controversy follows disclosures that Cameron personally lobbied chancellor Rishi Sunak on Greensill’s behalf via text messages and was able to arrange for its founder and his former Downing Street adviser, Lex Greensill, to have a “private drink” with health secretary Matt Hancock.The saga deepened last week after it emerged the former head of government procurement, Bill Crothers, took a part-time position with the failed firm while still in his Whitehall post.The Sunday Times has now reported that Cameron contacted a former Cabinet Office contact who has since moved onto a senior NHS position to help secure a lucrative health deal, allowing Greensill to roll out its advance payment app, Earnd, to doctors and nurses.Greensill’s collapse now risks thousands of jobs, particularly in the steel sector.Shadow communities secretary Steve Reed said the revelations surrounding Greensill were “shocking” and evidence that the “era of Tory sleaze is well and truly back”."The era of Tory sleaze is well and truly back."Labour's shadow communities secretary @SteveReedMP says there should be an 'open parliamentary investigation into what's been going on' following the Greensill lobbying row.#Ridge: https://t.co/jC2xzcMCbvpic.twitter.com/t3MA9DuGeQ— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) April 18, 2021The Labour frontbencher told Ridge on Sunday on Sky News: “You’ve got a former prime minister (David Cameron) employed by a wealthy organisation who is then using his personal relationships with existing ministers, including the chancellor of the exchequer, persuading them to do favours, favours that would not have been open to other businesses or organisations.”But Cameron was defended by his former aide Eustice, who suggested that the former PM should have written more formal letters to the likes of Sunak rather than informal messaging.#Marr: On Greensill Capital, was David Cameron’s behaviour acceptable?Environment Secretary George Eustice: "The key thing is that he’s not broken any of the rules... it is acceptable"https://t.co/3NZvUMb0u4pic.twitter.com/Xi2iWEP4Ib— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) April 18, 2021The environment secretary told Ridge: “I think the real point is. ‘has he done anything wrong?’ Well, on the face of it, no. There’s a review that is going on, we mustn’t prejudge that.”He then told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show: “I think the key thing is that he has not broken any of the rules.“It is acceptable, because it was within the rules.“The point I would make is that ministers, when they leave office, including prime ministers, aren’t allowed to take any such paid roles for two years – these are rules that David Cameron himself brought in.“He left office some five years ago and you can’t begrudge people moving on to another career.”Eustice conceded “tweaks” to the rules may be needed following No.10’s review, which is being led by City lawyer Nigel Boardman, and various parliamentary probes.“But fundamentally, I think the systems we have in place with ministers declaring interests with the ministerial code and the focus on that and how ministers conduct themselves in office is actually a pretty good one,” Eustice told Ridge.Responding to Eustice’s interviews, Labour’s shadow Cabinet Office minister Rachel Reeves said: “Less than a week since the government announced the Boardman review, ministers are openly admitting it has no powers whatsoever.Having failed to deflect the blame, the Government’s latest approach appears to be to shrug their shoulders and say ‘scandal? What scandal?’.“The public know that the cosy relationship between the Conservative government, commercial lobbyists and taxpayer money stinks of sleaze. It’s one rule for them, another for everybody else.“We don’t need the ‘tweaks’ Eustice said they might consider today, we need to tackle Tory sleaze with a full, independent, transparent inquiry – and we need stronger measures to put integrity and honour back into heart of government.” Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey dismissed Eustice’s claims, insisting that relying on the ministerial code leaves the prime minister as “judge and jury” in deciding if a minister has breached ethics standards.“I’m very worried that the ministerial code isn’t properly enforced,” Davey said.“We’ve seen (Sir) Alex Allan, the independent adviser for ministerial standards, resign and [a replacement has not been appointed].“I’d like to see an independent body enforcing the ministerial code, not the prime minister – that’s wrong.“It’s wrong that a politician should be the judge and jury of who decides who has broken the ministerial code, and what I would like to see is an independent body, just like we have IPSA over MPs pay and expenses, that could say: ‘this minister has broken the code’ and whether they can’t have their ministerial pay.“That would be the sort of penalty that I think the public would like and would rebuild trust in British politics.”Related...Voters Must Know Ministers’ Financial Affairs Before May Elections, Labour SaysRishi Sunak's Role In Greensill Lobbying Scandal To Be Probed By MPsDavid Cameron Lobbying Review Being Led By 'Good Friend' Of Tory Government, Says LabourGreensill Scandal: Whitehall Chief Under David Cameron Took Job With Finance FirmTexts Confirm David Cameron Lobbied Rishi Sunak To Help Save Greensill CapitalBoris Johnson Must Cancel India Trip Amid Covid Variant Concerns, Labour Says
2
More

Top