Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Lex Greensill is giving evidence in Parliament - meanwhile David Cameron's texts and WhatsApps have been published. I am reminded of his texts with Rebekah Brooks when she was editor of the Sun which he signed of "LOL" because he thought it meant "lots of love"

David Cameron's Most Cringeworthy Greensill Lobbying Texts Laid Bare
"Am now calling the chancellor, Gove, everyone".
    By Arj Singh

David Cameron's intense lobbying for collapsed finance firm Greensill Capital has been laid bare in 45 emails, texts and WhatsApp messages to ministers and officials.

The Commons Treasury Committee published the former PM's communications ahead of an evidence session with the firm's founder Lex Greensill.

Its inquiry is one of a series of probes, including one launched by Downing Street, as Westminster looks to understand the role Cameron played in securing Whitehall access for the company.

Greensill is now being investigated by the Financial Conduct Authority, having received allegations relating to the firm's collapse that were "potentially criminal in nature".

Both Cameron and Greensill, who reportedly claimed to be a Downing Street adviser under the former PM, will give evidence to the Commons Treasury committee on the firm's collapse this week.

Before they gave evidence, the committee published Cameron's messages to ministers and officials.

And wow, they are toe curling.

Here are the most cringeworthy moments as Cameron tried and failed to secure access for Greensill to the government's Covid Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF):

'Love DC'

Cameron's lobbying began on March 5 2020 with a message to the Treasury's top civil servant Tom Scholar.

He was Cameron's Europe adviser, during the ex-PM's ill fated renegotiation of the UK's relationship with the EU that preceded the Brexit vote in 2016.

But that bruising experience doesn't appear to have soured their relationship.

Cameron had one ask: for a phone number for Sir Jon Cunliffe, deputy governor of the Bank of England.

But signing off, he asked Scholar: "Can I give you lunch once the budget is done? Love Dc."

It appears to pay off, as two hours later a call was set up between Cameron and Cunliffe, according to the messages.

The following day, Cameron texted Scholar again suggesting they could meet chancellor Rishi Sunak for "an elbow bump or foot tap".

Once again, he signed off: "Love Dc".

CAPS LOCK ON

A couple of weeks later and all is not well for Cameron.

On the night of April 1 he tells Scholar a decision on Greensill's involvement in the CCFF is "getting urgent".

The next morning, he seeks to underline this point with that most desperate of texting techniques - CAPS.

"Greensill do early payment in the NHS. All your Pharmacies are paid immediately {by us) rather than waiting months for the NHS to cough up. That is CASH (effectively very cheap credit)into businesses NOW, rather than waiting ages for action by banks."


Covid platitudes

By this point, the UK was heading towards its first coronavirus lockdown.

But it did not stop the intense lobbying efforts by Cameron, who regularly addressed arguably the biggest crisis since the Second World War early in his messages before turning to the business at hand.

In one text to Scholar, Cameron wrote: "Thinking of you in these impossibly difficult times. Glad you are at the helm."

In another, he said: "Hope you are staying calm".

Later, while texting a senior minister (more on this below), Cameron acknowledged they would be "maniacally busy" but nevertheless asked for help with Greensill.

A hatchet buried?

The following day and things have gone from bad to worse for Cameron.

"Again Greensill have got a 'no'," he tells Scholar.

"Am genuinely baffled."

His love also appears to be fading as he asks Scholar for "5 minutes for a call", adding that the Treasury's refusal "seems bonkers".

In his sign-off, Cameron makes clear it is time to round-up his old Tory colleagues for support.

"Am now calling CX [the chancellor], Gove, everyone. Best wishes. Dc."

Yes, Michael Gove, who Cameron once described as a "foam-flecked Faragist" who "twisted" the truth while backing Leave during the Brexit referendum, in a betrayal of the former PM that led to these two old friends falling out spectacularly.

No matter, Cameron was happy to enlist Gove in his lobbying efforts, asking if the Cabinet Office minister had "a moment for a word" and adding: "I am on this number and v free. All good wishes Dc."

Cameron also texted chancellor Rishi Sunak and junior Treasury ministers Jesse Norman and John Glen as his lobbying efforts widened.

'Key points'

Cameron was famously a PR man before entering the Commons and rising to become prime minister.

And all his best press office skills were on display as he sent around a one page summary of how great Greensill is and why the Treasury should be keen to work with the firm.

On April 3 he sent the summary to Norman and senior Downing Street adviser Sheridan Westlake.

A day later, he manages to get the document in front of Sunak.

He followed up with a text message: "Just sent a one pager that I hope clarifies things. Really appreciate your time. Best wishes. Dc."

'One Last WhatsApp'

Weeks later and we are in mid-May. Lengthy discussions, including several text messages with Sunak and officials, have still not led to Greensill being granted access to the CCFF.

The discussions appear to be hung up on the fact that the firm's work could help foreign firms with UK government cash.

On May 18, Cameron is keen to address the concerns, using a lengthy message to forward correspondence from Lex Greensill to Sunak and saying the firm "can (now) guarantee that BoE [Bank of England] funds will only be used by UK businesses".

One minute later he explains to Sunak that he has sent "one last whatsapp with a solution".

But it was not one last WhatsApp.

The next month, Cameron makes a last ditch bid to call on his old colleagues, texting Glen and business minister Nadhim Zahawi, who became an MP when Cameron became PM in 2010.

Cameron attempts to charm Zahawi, praising him for being "v solid in the media" before obtaining a number for a Richard Sharp.

In June, several messages are sent to Sharp, Westlake and Glen.

But by June 26, it appears Cameron's extensive efforts have failed.

He finishes his correspondence with a text to Glen: "Thanks for your help with this. Sorry the answer is a 'no' but we appreciate the engagement. All good wishes. Dc."

[Sheilbh]

The daily mail has been very critical of Johnson. The right-wing evil MSM stole my voters is a pathetic excuse. Waiting for demographic destiny is a fool's errand as well, many of our immigrant groups are more conservative than the native population, as they integrate they will be more comfortable voting tory

I genuinely wonder what's going on at the Mail - because I bet Johnson wasn't hoping for this front page after the Queen's speech:


My best guess is they are fiscal hawks and they hate his posh boy loucheness - but even that doesn't seem to really explain how hard they're going in on everything

Edit: Incidentally the most interesting point in Greensill's evidence might be that David Cameron had a standing invitation to attend board meetings and could if he chose to. Combined with Cameron and Greensill separately referring to him as a board member, I suspect there's a real chance Cameron might have been a shadow director.

[Sheilbh]

One for Tamas.

The government have proposed planning reform. At the minute planning is controlled by local councils and basically I think planning permission for new buildings (or certain changes) is discretionary and on a case by case basis.

The proposed reforms are basically to move to an American style zoning system - though it's little vague at the minute. The idea is that areas will be categorised as "growth", "protection" or "renewal". In growth areas new construction of housing, businesses etc etc will be permitted as long as it follows the local specific planning rules (so probably height restrictions etc), but if you want to go outside those rules then you need to get permission. There will be more rules and restrictions for "protection" or "renewal" areas and there's also going to be some form of design code for local planning rules.

It's all a bit vague and I think still relies too much on private developers who depend on land value which is particularly driven by scarcity. But it sounds like an improvement compared to what we have.

Inevitably environmentalists are holding a protest against it today, Labour and the Lib Dems oppose it because it removes too much power from local councils (or as they put it communities) and Theresa May is apparently organising Tory resistance on the back benches

No doubt if they defeat then in a decade or so, the environmentalists will complain about all the development in and around urban areas they've helped stop meaning more and more people live in less well connected and thus more carbon intensive new build estates on small towns; Labour and the Lib Dems will bemoan the lack of housing for young people and the impact on rent/affordability; and the Tories will regret that they didn't take steps to expand home ownership which is probably the easiest way to covert non-Tory voters into Tory voters

I've seen someone online compare British planning laws to the US healthcare system in how important it is, how much cost it adds to people and how almost impossible it is to reform because there are so many people involved in/benefiting from the status quo - unlike healthcare, not many people are aware of how key it is so it's not really a political issue.

Edit: Meanwhile:

[The Brain]

C2DE? Cool to the end?

[Sheilbh]

C2DE? Cool to the end?

Standard UK social class grades:
A    Upper middle class    Higher managerial roles, administrative or professional.
B    Middle middle class    Intermediate managerial roles, administrative or professional.
C1    Lower middle class    Supervisory or clerical and junior managerial roles, administrative or professional.
Basically these are the classic Tory voters/middle classes.

C2    Skilled working class    Skilled manual workers.
D    Working class    Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers.
E    Non working    State pensioners, casual and lowest grade workers, unemployed with state benefits only.
Classic Labour voters (plus the retired)/ the working class. I think E also includes students as well as pensioners

[Josquius]

I'm trying to figure out the planning system at the moment for my house. It is indeed quite a mess.

[Sheilbh]

So much in this story to love/make you want to burn the world down. It's almost too on-point that the Tory Chair runs a "luxury concierge" company for the super-rich

Tory chairman Ben Elliot's company admits making illegal payments
James Dean, Chief Business Correspondent
Thursday May 13 2021, 12.01am, The Times


Boris Johnson with Ben Elliot, co-chairman of the Conservative Party, whose company Quintessentially has admitted a string of accounting failures
DAVE BENNETT/GETTY IMAGES
Share

A luxury concierge service founded by Ben Elliot, co-chairman of the Conservative Party, has admitted to a string of accounting failures and making illegal payments to shareholders.

Quintessentially paid £1.4 million to shareholders when it did not have adequate reserves to do so. Elliot and his business partners Aaron Simpson and Paul Drummond are among those with shares in the company, although it is not known whether they received any of the money.

The accounting errors were laid bare in a long-delayed financial report from the firm. The document also warned the company might struggle to continue, given Covid travel restrictions.

It showed Quintessentially made a loss of £4.4 million in 2019 and £5 million in 2018, which was larger than the £3.1 million previously reported.

Elliot, 45, is the nephew of the Duchess of Cornwall and has close ties to royalty and senior Conservatives, including Boris Johnson. After leaving Eton he worked in several jobs in London's social scene, including at the K-Bar in Chelsea, which was visited by Prince William and Prince Harry.

He founded Quintessentially in 2000 and was appointed as co-chairman of the Conservative Party in 2019.

Quintessentially bills itself as a "luxury lifestyle management" service that offers private concierge services and "unparalleled access to global events".

The company claims to be able to organise almost anything for its individual and corporate members, who pay an annual subscription fee. Suggestions include booking a Michelin-starred restaurant, "sourcing their dream new home, a best-in-class private tutor, a last-minute business trip or expert curation for a personal art collection". Publicity stunts have included flying teabags to Madonna while she was touring in the United States.

While Quintessentially was founded to cater to the whims of the super-rich it has since been used by Whitehall officials to help contact wealthy would-be investors. In 2016, the company won a £1.36 million government contract to arrange "exceptional visits", provide insight from the luxury concierge industry and organise opportunities to network "at the highest levels".

Quintessentially's financial report for 2019, published more than a year late, shows the company did not have sufficient "distributable reserves" to make payouts to shareholders between 2014 and 2017, meaning that the payments, worth £1.4 million, were illegal under UK company law. Quintessentially said in its report that the matter had since been "rectified".

The financial report also documents eight accounting errors.

Quintessentially said: "As part of the group reconstruction exercise performed during the year, alongside the wider streamlining activities . . . management extensively reviewed the accounting performed in all of its subsidiaries to ensure that positions were correctly stated . . . A number of errors impacting previous periods were identified and have been corrected."

A report by the board, signed by Elliot, said that the directors "have a reasonable expectation that the group and company has adequate resources to continue in operation for the next 12 months".

However, uncertainty caused by the pandemic had created "a risk that the pace and level at which business returns could be materially less than forecast, requiring the [company] to obtain external funding which may not be forthcoming," the board report said.

Quintessentially employs about 400 people in 60 offices around the world.

Edit: Incidentally on the David Cameron thing (he's giving evidence later today) - I've just seen some of the sample texts in the format they were released. The thing that really strikes me is that so many of them were being sent in the first week of April last year - which was, from memory, when Johnson was in intensive care and the first wave was at its peak. Obviously there are more general issues with the lobbying but that angle in particular just feels incredibly inappropriate and tasteless from a former Prime Minister. But also it feels like it kind of sums up Cameron in general.

[Tamas]

Well, when else are you supposed to grab the juiciest wartime contracts than at the start of the war? He and his sponsor had no intention of being left behind, clearly.

[Sheilbh]

Well, when else are you supposed to grab the juiciest wartime contracts than at the start of the war? He and his sponsor had no intention of being left behind, clearly.

Yeah - although the company didn't get bailed out despite the lobbying because it didn't meet the rules and has since gone bust.

This would be a far bigger story if he'd been successful in his lobbying. But the sheer number of texts - every couple of minutes to the next rung up the ladder - feels like it's probably the most effort Cameron's ever put into anything

[Tamas]

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/05/12/the-queens-speech-reveals-the-meaning-of-johnsonism

The government is extending its control over the economy, too. Its plan for freeports is an attempt to direct investment to particular parts of the country. It is taking the opportunity that Brexit offers to give itself more discretion over handing out money to private companies and over using public procurement to further its levelling-up agenda. Both should send shivers down taxpayers' spines.

The programme also includes a constitutional power grab. Mr Johnson has had it in for the judiciary ever since the Supreme Court prevented him from proroguing Parliament over Brexit—hence plans to limit the judges' power to challenge the executive as well as to restore to the executive discretion over when to call an election, which Mr Cameron's government had renounced.

And as state power extends, so civil liberties will be crimped. The Johnson government has entertained new restraints on protest, limitations on asylum and voter-ID requirements. It looks set on meddling in culture and univer­sities. They are all designed to press culturally conservative voters' hot-buttons.

When you put it that way...  I am now wondering if we are underestimating Johnson's intentions or the intentions of those advising him. Only thing missing from that list to describe Orban's first few years is super-restrictive media law that got neutered by the EU into just intimidating the press with exorbitant fines, otherwise it's spot on.

[Tamas]

Well, when else are you supposed to grab the juiciest wartime contracts than at the start of the war? He and his sponsor had no intention of being left behind, clearly.

Yeah - although the company didn't get bailed out despite the lobbying because it didn't meet the rules and has since gone bust.

This would be a far bigger story if he'd been successful in his lobbying. But the sheer number of texts - every couple of minutes to the next rung up the ladder - feels like it's probably the most effort Cameron's ever put into anything

I am 100% convinced what we are seeing is the tip of the iceberg, a lame and ill-executed attempt at what's routine operation for everyone close enough to decision makers.

[The Larch]

Another article on EU citizens being locked up and expelled from the UK upon arrival, this time with a bit more info:

EU citizens arriving in UK being locked up and expelled
Europeans with job interviews tell of detentions and expulsions despite rules allowing non-visa holders to attend interviews

EU citizens are being sent to immigration removal centres and held in airport detention rooms as the UK government's "hostile environment" policy falls on them after Brexit, according to campaigners and travellers interviewed by the Guardian.

Europeans with job interviews are among those being denied entry and locked up. They have spoken of being subjected to the traumatic and humiliating experience of expulsion, despite Home Office rules that explicitly allow non-visa holders to attend interviews.

Confusion about whether EU citizens can explore the UK job market and then go home with an offer in order to apply for a work visa has added to the growing number of detentions. In other cases, visitors are clearly breaking rules, such as those now barring EU citizens from taking up unpaid internships.

At least a dozen European citizens – mostly young women – were detained and expelled at Gatwick airport alone over 48 hours last week, two female Spanish detainees told the Guardian. Some were sent two hours' drive away to Yarl's Wood detention centre in Bedfordshire, where a Covid scare meant they were confined to their rooms.

Other countries whose citizens have been held at a UK airport or detention centre include Italy, France, Bulgaria and Greece. It is understood one French man was held at Edinburgh airport for 48 hours recently, while the Bulgarian ambassador to the UK confirmed a number of his nationals had been held at immigration removal centres.

The two Spanish women were detained at Gatwick on 2 and 3 February after arriving on separate flights from Valencia and Bilbao.

María, 25, from Valencia, said that like many of those detained, she thought she was free to explore the job market at least until October, especially since she had lived and worked in the UK before.

María said that when Border Force officials at Gatwick said they would expel her, she offered to pay for a flight home the same day. Instead, she was sent to Yarl's Wood, where she spent three anxious days. "I'm still in shock," she said.

When the Guardian first spoke to María on Friday she was at Yarl's Wood and scared that she had been exposed to Covid. Later that day she was released and ordered to quarantine at her sister's home in Bexleyheath in south-east London until 17 February. Border Force officials kept her passport.

"So much time is being wasted," she said. "The worst thing was that no one at Yarl's Wood could tell me what was going to happen. My freedom had been taken away and I couldn't get legal advice."

Eugenia, a 24-year-old woman from the Basque region of northern Spain, reached Gatwick on Sunday 2 February on a flight from Bilbao. She planned to look for a job offer, go home to apply for a visa and then return to live with her Spanish boyfriend – an NHS worker who has been in the UK for four years. "I had a return ticket and had filled out an online travel form in which I explained all that," she said.

At Gatwick, Eugenia had her mobile phone taken away and was locked in a holding room for 24 hours, sleeping on a fold-out bed with half-a-dozen others. Then she was put on a flight to Barcelona along with another Spanish woman who had arrived for a job interview.

Between them, María and Eugenia (who asked that their real names not be used) said they met a dozen other European citizens detained for similar reasons, accounting for half of the people in Gatwick's detention rooms. They included two Spaniards with job interviews, a French woman with an internship and a Czech woman who had flown in from Mexico and was being sent back there.

"The Czech girl was desperate," said Eugenia, who spent part of her 24 hours locked up in tears. "Like me, she knew we couldn't start work immediately, but understood that you could look for jobs and come back to the UK later after obtaining a visa. When she offered to pay for a flight back to Prague, they said no – that they were expelling her to Mexico."

Other travellers with Italian, Portuguese and eastern European passports were also being expelled.

Luke Piper, a former immigration solicitor who works for the3million campaign group that monitors the post-Brexit treatment of EU citizens in the UK, said rules were confusing and accused Border Force of being overly aggressive. "There is absolutely no need to send someone to Yarl's Wood if they can stay with family until the expulsion," he said.

Eugenia said she was told her airline, Vueling, was to blame. "We had all read the website and filled out the forms. Then they tell you that it is all the fault of the airline, which shouldn't have let us board."

Vueling denied airlines were meant to vet EU travellers. "It is officials in the country of destination who establish and enforce entry requirements," a spokesperson, Tania Galesi, said.

Eugenia said cabin staff on her return flight had seen several similar cases. Frontier police who met them at Barcelona confirmed this. "They didn't understand why it was happening. British citizens entering Spain are not treated that way."

Eugenia said the experience was so traumatic that she had given up on trying to live with her boyfriend. "I'm not going back," she said. "I don't want to go through that again. The idea of moving to Britain appals me."

The Home Office claimed the new rules were clear and could be easily checked online. "We require evidence of an individual's right to live and work in the UK," a spokesperson said. Yet Home Office advice explicitly states that visitors without work visas may "attend meetings, conferences, seminars, interviews" and "negotiate and sign deals and contracts".

Araniya Kogulathas, a barrister with the NGO Bail for Immigration Detainees, said EU citizens were experiencing Britain's hostile environment for immigration.

"The Home Office need to explain why exploring the job market or attending an interview justifies refusing EEA nationals entry at the border when immigration rules specifically allow visitors to – among other things – attend meetings, conferences and interviews," she said. "It seems to be detaining people despite being unclear of its own position. This is yet another illustration of the normalisation of immigration detention in the UK and the Home Office's disdain for the right to liberty."

Detainees complained that they were not informed of their right to seek legal assistance. María only learned about the Yarl's Wood Covid scare from her sister, who was barred from visiting because of it. The Home Office denied there had been an "outbreak".

Spanish officials said they were monitoring the situation and a European Commission spokesperson said it was concerned about "the conditions and duration of retention" while adding that only a "small number of EU citizens" seemed to have been affected so far.

The Bulgarian ambassador to the UK, Marin Raykov, confirmed his consulate had dealt with "several cases, when a return flight was not available within 24 hours the arrival time ... several Bulgarian citizens were detained at an immigration removal centre".

He said citizens needed to be given a chance to contact the embassy. "The embassy expects to be promptly notified by the Home Office/Border Force regarding the temporary detention ... so consular officials may provide them with the necessary advice, inform their relatives in Bulgaria if necessary, as well as assist in arranging their speedy return to Bulgaria."

The Home Office has not released data on border detentions since Brexit came into force in January and it remains unclear how many of those detained have been able, or willing, to contact their consulates.

[Agelastus]

...as well as to restore to the executive discretion over when to call an election, which Mr Cameron's government had renounced.

While much of it is concerning, this particular move will probably be welcomed by several Languish posters who would not ordinarily agree about politics.

[Sheilbh]

When you put it that way...  I am now wondering if we are underestimating Johnson's intentions or the intentions of those advising him. Only thing missing from that list to describe Orban's first few years is super-restrictive media law that got neutered by the EU into just intimidating the press with exorbitant fines, otherwise it's spot on.

I think that list's a bit of a mish-mash of serious (changes to asylum rules), normal (governments spending money in a way that furthers their agenda), not that serious (judicial review - so far) and at least one very good thing (abolishing fixed term parliaments ).

But I think you're right. When I was reading The Light That Failed and it was talking about Orban's constitutional vision, I kept on thinking that what was being described was basically a version of the British system. Very strong majoritarianism, powerful executive, with limited oversight or formal constitutional checks and balances in favour of political checks (elections) - or as Lord Hailsham (Lord Chancellor for Ted Heath and Thatcher) put it to describe Jim Callaghan's government, an "elective dictatorship".

Membership of the EU and exposure to European law transformed that approach - especially from about 1990. I've mentioned before but I think it's really important that key figures the government broadly came up in the 80s. I think there is a restorationist side to their Brexit that is about returning to that elective dicatatorship theory of the British state which I think has Thatcher as its peak - so the very moment they would have been learning about it and really observing politics for the first time (in the same way - I think I have a lot of political biases that are basically shaped by coming up during New Labour at its peak). So I think part of the similarity is that it feels like they're working to the same model/aim. For the UK it's a "return" to that version of our constitution; for Hungary I think it's new.

I'm not convinced it'll work in the UK - I think the genie's out of the bottle and UK lawyers, judges, civil servants etc have become too acquainted with European ideas like proportionality or a broad coherent view of government powers. It's striking that even someone who is probably a Brexiteer like Lord Sumption when making his arguments against lockdown in part relies on European principles.

Separately - on Northern Ireland - just seen story about how much Johnson has bungled the response to the Ballymurphy inquest (this stands in contrast to Cameron's excellent response to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, his best moment as a PM in my view - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMZ3CtC8KEY). He should have apologised yesterday and has fucked up the letter too. He needs to make a statement with a proper, formal apology - as Cameron did.

Background on the inquest's findings:

Ten people shot dead in Ballymurphy were innocent, inquest finds
Report says killings during British army operations in Belfast in 1971 were unjustified
Rory Carroll and Heather Stewart
Tue 11 May 2021 22.03 BST

Ten people killed in Belfast during a British army operation in 1971 were unarmed, innocent civilians and posed no threat to soldiers, an inquest in Northern Ireland has found.

The damning findings in a long-awaited coroner's report implicated the army in an atrocity to rival Bloody Sunday, potentially galvanising a new push to prosecute army veterans.

Nine of the dead were killed by soldiers using unjustified force but the inquest could not establish who killed the 10th victim, John McKerr, during a blood-soaked incursion in Ballymurphy, a west Belfast Catholic neighbourhood, in August 1971.

"All of the deceased in the series of inquests were entirely innocent of wrongdoing on the day in question," said the coroner, Mrs Justice Keegan, dismissing claims by soldiers that some of the victims had been armed and shooting.

Families of the dead wept and applauded after the findings were read out in court, saying the truth had come out after half a century.

"We have corrected history today. The inquest confirmed that the soldiers who came to the area supposedly to protect us ... turned their guns on us," said John Teggart, whose father, Daniel, was among the dead.

"It hasn't actually sank in, it's like a dream," said Joan Connolly, holding a framed portrait of her mother, Joan Connolly, a mother of eight whom soldiers had branded an IRA gunwoman. "The joy and the peace and the mixed emotions that my mummy has been declared an innocent woman."

Her father had not been able to identify his wife in the morgue because her face was mangled, said Connolly. "Her name has been cleared. We have got justice after 50 years. My daddy died a broken man."

The coroner's blistering indictment of the army's actions and state-backed efforts to depict most of the dead as IRA members prompted agreement across the political spectrum that a profound injustice had been committed.

Brandon Lewis, the UK's Northern Ireland secretary, acknowledged the "terrible hurt" caused to the families and said they "should not have had to wait this long", but did not apologise for the state's role in the killings or delayed justice. "The government will carefully consider the extensive findings set out by the coroner, but it is clear that those who died were entirely innocent of wrongdoing," he said.

Lewis's Labour shadow, Louise Haigh, said: "The conclusions of Justice Keegan are clear and irrefutable. Those who lost their lives were innocent and posing no threat.

"Their deaths were without justification. The fundamental right to life violated. That families have had to fight for so long for the truth is a profound failure of justice."

The inquest findings coincided with a promise by the UK government to introduce legislation to turn the page on Northern Ireland's so-called legacy cases, which some victims' rights groups believe could grant a blanket amnesty for crimes. The former armed forces minister Johnny Mercer said the Queen's speech on Tuesday contained no explicit pledge to shield army veterans from prosecution.

Leaked proposals had suggested a statute of limitations would be introduced to prevent charges being brought for incidents before the Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998. Any time limit is expected to apply to former paramilitaries as well as ex-forces personnel, with plans under discussion by the UK government and politicians in Dublin and Belfast.

Lewis said the current system for dealing with the legacy of the Troubles was not working for anyone, adding: "This government wants to deliver a way forward that will provide information about what happened during the Troubles in a way that helps families get the answers they want and lays the foundation for greater reconciliation and a shared future for all communities."

Simon Coveney, Ireland's foreign minister, said the Ballymurphy inquest had cast light on a dark page of the Troubles. In a veiled message to the UK government, he said: "Every family bereaved in the conflict must have access to an effective investigation and to a process of justice regardless of the perpetrator."

Naomi Long, leader of the Alliance party and Northern Ireland's justice minister, said the families had to battle too hard and too long for truth.

Sinn Féin's Michelle O'Neill, the deputy first minister, said: "What happened in Ballymurphy was state murder and for decades the British government have covered it up. Now the truth has been laid bare for all to see."

What survivors have long called the Ballymurphy massacre began on 9 August 1971 when the army swept through republican districts across Northern Ireland to round up suspects for internment without trial. Violent street protests erupted.

The Parachute Regiment spent several chaotic days detaining and shooting people in Ballymurphy from 9 to 11 August. There were no TV crews or newspaper photographers to document what happened – unlike in Derry five months later when the same regiment massacred protesters, triggering worldwide condemnation.

Outsiders largely overlooked events in Ballymurphy until relatives campaigned for an inquest. It began in November 2018 under Keegan, a high court judge, and heard from more than 100 witnesses including experts in ballistics and pathology, the former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams and more than 60 former soldiers, among them Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the former head of the British army and chief of the general staff.

Lawyers for the soldiers said the troops opened fire only when they perceived they were under threat. The coroner's findings eviscerated that narrative. Applying the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities, the report found all of the 10 dead were innocent civilians and that nine were shot by soldiers.

Father Hugh Mullan, a parish priest, was hit by at least two bullets as he read the last rites to an injured man. "Lacerations to the right lung, liver, stomach and intestines would have resulted in fairly rapid but not necessarily immediate death," according to the coroner's report.

The priest died alongside Francis Quinn, 19, in what the coroner called "clearly disproportionate" use of force.

Joan Connolly, 44, was the only woman killed. "She died as a result of blood loss from gunshot wounds after a period of initial survival, likely to be measured in tens of minutes."

The coroner found that the other fatalities - Daniel Teggart, 44, Noel Phillips, 19, Joseph Murphy, 41, Edward Doherty, 31, Joseph Corr, 43, and John Laverty, 20, were also innocent.

She acknowledged it was a difficult environment for soldiers and that they had come under fire from gunmen but said the state had failed to establish that the shootings were justified. Adams, who is from Ballymurphy, told the inquest two masked IRA members were in the area during the violence.

[The Larch]

Somehow related, the Guardian has a pretty long article on the dysfunction inside the Home Office:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/13/cruel-paranoid-failing-priti-patel-inside-the-home-office

Cruel, paranoid, failing: inside the Home Office

Something is badly wrong at the heart of one of Britain's most important ministries. How did it become so broken?

For the thousands of people who end up on the wrong side of the Home Office each year, there is often a sudden moment of disbelief. This can't be happening, people tell themselves. They can't do this, can they?

For Ruhena Miah, a sales assistant born and raised in the West Midlands, this moment came when she received a letter saying that if she wanted to marry the man she loved, she would have to move to Bangladesh. For Tayjay Thompson, a young man convicted of a drugs offence when he was 17, it was when he was told he would be deported to Jamaica, a country he'd left as a toddler. For Monique Hawkins, a Dutch software engineer, it was when her application for a residency permit was rejected, despite the fact she had lived in the UK for 24 years. For Omar, a refugee from Afghanistan (who asked me not to use his real name), it was when he stepped off the plane at Heathrow and discovered that he was being taken to a building that looked to him very much like a prison.

For Sheikh Shariful Amin, a young businessman from Bangladesh, the moment of disbelief came on 5 February 2015, in the back of an Immigration Enforcement van. Amin had just been arrested in a dawn raid on his east London home. Enforcement officers told him that he was accused of cheating on an English language test. Amin was terrified and humiliated – he had needed the toilet before he was led out of his house, and had to go while a female officer looked on – but he was also baffled. Why would anyone think he had cheated on a test he had taken as a mere formality when he applied for a new visa? He had lived in the UK for nearly a decade, he had a degree from an English university, he spoke English fluently. Surely they knew they'd made a mistake?

"I asked one officer 'Could you please tell me: do you think I can't speak English?'" Amin told me recently. The officer agreed that Amin's English sounded fine. "He said: 'Listen mate, I don't know what's going on at the Home Office, but your name is flagged on our system.'"

What's going on at the Home Office has become an increasingly urgent question in recent years. Something seems badly wrong at the heart of one of Britain's most important ministries. It is the department of law and order, yet it is constantly found to have broken the law. It strains to be seen as competent and tough, yet struggles to show evidence that its policies are working. It has repeatedly been revealed to be treating people cruelly, yet it now claims that those days are behind it, even as its "new plan for immigration" is condemned by the UN's refugee agency as inhumane. When it is criticised, the Home Office is as likely to lash out as admit a mistake: "If you are not being challenged by someone, you are not doing it right," one official recently told the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.

Simply put, it seems to be a horribly run department, with despicable policies desgined to placate tabloids and an awful place to work for, with little or no willingness for reform.