Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

Not to say you are wrong in this specific case Sheilbh but size of the company isn't an argument against their participation in corruption.

It's not conclusive but it's pretty persuasive. When the value of the alleged benefit us less than 0.1% of the turnover of the company concerned then you would be pretty surprised that executives are willing to risk corporate suicide for a marginal gain which will make no difference whatsoever to their bonuses.

I dunno. It's feasible even the biggest and richest company in the world could leave execs feeling undervalued.
Combine that with the likely feeling of untouchability that comes with being huge...

Edit: Separately I feel like we're on the edge of developing an anti-pork barrel politics. Politicians campaigning on how many investments and new infrastructure projects they've managed to block in their constituency

Given traditional PB is slowly creeping it's way into UK politics this couldn't come fast enough.

[Gups]

Not to say you are wrong in this specific case Sheilbh but size of the company isn't an argument against their participation in corruption.

It's not conclusive but it's pretty persuasive. When the value of the alleged benefit us less than 0.1% of the turnover of the company concerned then you would be pretty surprised that executives are willing to risk corporate suicide for a marginal gain which will make no difference whatsoever to their bonuses.

Well I do remember some German giants (was it Siemens?) getting into some massive corruption scandals a decade or two ago, for example. That did happen, and was not a suicide despite the big scandal.

In what sense was it not career suicide for the executives concerned? Loads of them actually got criminal convictions

[Zanza]

In the case of the Siemens CFO during that time it was literally suicide by the way.

[Sheilbh]

I regret to announce that Matt Hancock has discovered TikTok
https://twitter.com/Nevererdofher/status/1688263207138230272

Dignity, always dignity. He was never a well-liked politician and I suppose he's trying to do the Ed Balls/Michael Portillo redemption thing - but I think (like Johnson) he really underestimates how angry peopple are.

On Hancock generally I really hate the way that he has been trying to describe his resignation as basically being caused because he had an affair (prudish public) and that he's just an ordinary guy "who fell in love". When he had to resign because he had a workplace affair with someone he hired (on a large salary) and was breaching covid guidelines. Loads of politicians have had affairs and divorced their wives without having to resign - because they didn't do it in the office, while they were Health Secretary during a pandemic killing thousands every week

It's like the way Johnson defenders position it as him having to resign for "having a bit of cake". The gap between how seriously and conscientiously the vast majority of the public took covid restrictions and the behaviour and subsequent defences of politicians is huge - and the more they defend, the more annoyed/angry the public get.

[Josquius]

On our favourite topic of planning you'll have seen this one lately...

BBC News - Demolition of Crooked House pub unacceptable - council
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-66442399

All sounds very suspicious indeed. This "woops. Listed building whose site we want to redevelop mysteriously got hit by arson." thing happens way too often. It's an area where I absolutely have time for conspiracy but oddly nobody seems to be keen on shouting about it usually. Thankfully this one is getting significant media attention

[Sheilbh]

There was that listed pub,I want to say somewhere in North London, that the developers just demolished and were then ordered to reconstruct it exactly brick-by-brick

This building wasn't listed. But yeah it sounds very dubious.

[Sheilbh]

Catastrophic seems like the right word here:

Catastrophic PSNI blunder identifies every serving police officer and civilian staff with 345,000 pieces of data, prompting security nightmare
Monumental data breach offers a gold mine to terrorists, with some of the most sensitive details of PSNI officers published online – by the PSNI
The PSNI is dealing with a huge security breach tonight
Sam McBride and Liam Tunney
Today at 18:20

The PSNI is tonight desperately attempting to contact its officers after a data breach of "monumental proportions" meant the force mistakenly published the names, ranks, locations and other personal data of every serving police officer and civilian employee.

The data from the PSNI's ultra-confidential human resources system is a gold mine for terrorists, offering details of officers working in intelligence and other highly sensitive areas – including almost 40 PSNI staff based with MI5.

The material was wrongly published on the internet today by the PSNI in what appears to be human error involving spreadsheet fields.

The spreadsheet in question contained standard statistical information on the strength of the PSNI, with details of how many officers it has at each rank.

However, a second tab in the spreadsheet contained multiple entries in relation to more than 10,000 individuals. For each individual, there are 32 pieces of data meaning that in total, there are about 345,000 pieces of data in the file.

The spreadsheet, which has been seen by the Belfast Telegraph after we were alerted to it by a relative of a serving officer, includes each officer's service number, their status, their gender, their contract type, their last name and initials, details of how much of the week they work, and their rank.

It also includes the location where they are based (but not their home address), their duty type (from chief constable to detective, intelligence officer and so on), details of their unit (such as the anti-corruption unit or the vetting department), their branch and department, and other technical information about their employment.

There are 10,799 entries in the database. There are 9,276 police officers and police staff. It is not clear if the additional entries relate to other employees or former employees.

The data has been removed from the internet, but it is not yet clear how long it was available online.

There are details of staff who are suspended, on career breaks, or partly retired.

It reveals members of the organised crime unit, telecom liaison officers, intelligence officers stationed at ports and airports, PSNI pilots in its air support unit, officers in the surveillance unit and – of acute sensitivity – almost 40 PSNI staff based at MI5's headquarters in Holywood.

There are a tiny number of individuals whose unit is given as "secret". But although that does not disclose precisely what they do, it marks them out as operating in an acutely sensitive area – and then gives their name.

There are details of the specialist firearms team, of riot police – the TSG unit – and the close protection unit which guards senior politicians and judges.

There is even a list of people responsible for "information security".

It is a breathtaking exposure of PSNI secrets.

One former senior PSNI officer told the Belfast Telegraph that it was "astonishing" and a "huge operational security breach".

"This is the biggest data breach I can recall in the PSNI," he said.

"Many officers from Catholic communities don't tell their families, friends and ex-school colleagues – I worked with many who never did even in recent times. That is a huge issue when that community is still underrepresented and the PSNI is trying to encourage applicants."

He said that the system on which such sensitive data is stored "is highly regulated internally because of that fact, so even if this information is compromised only internally it's still big".

He added: "This is freely circulating on WhatApp groups, including retired officers. It is in essence 'out there' and can never be retrieved; the operating assumption must be it will be outside of the police family."

The former officer said that "a data breach so catastrophic can't be blamed on a single member of staff, it's a systemic failure, it shouldn't be possible this can happen by a 'slip of a pen' so to speak".

There has been no suggestion from police sources that this breach was deliberate rather than a disastrous human error.

The DUP's lead Policing Board representative Trevor Clarke said: ''This is a deeply alarming development and follows hot on the heels of separate reports of theft and trespassing on the police estate. The public will be rightly seeking answers and they deserve to see a robust response from the PSNI senior command.

"Any data breach is unacceptable but more so when it disclose personal information identifying rank and file officers. The scale of this breach seems unprecedented.

"This not only jeopardises the safety of officers but will further undermine morale within the organisation at a time when staff are holding the line amid unprecedented budget cuts.

"Those employed by the PSNI in any capacity deserve to have their rights and interests protected by the leadership of the police force they serve.

"It is high time errors of this magnitude become a thing of the past in the delivery of policing in Northern Ireland. We will raising these concerns with the Chief Constable directly in the coming days.''

UUP leader Doug Beattie said: "This is a unbelievable breach of data and staff security. It cannot be any more serious than this and hard to fathom how such a breach could happen accidentally."

It is understood an email has been sent to PSNI staff advising them not to forward links to the data breach and to delete them immediately.

The email also confirmed a "Gold Group" has been convened by Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Chris Todd to respond to the incident.

A Gold Group is the highest level of internal emergency response available to the PSNI and is generally convened in cases of serious public disorder or a major incident requiring the oversight of the ACC.

The ACC reports directly to the Chief Constable and if required, the national emergency committee COBRA in Whitehall.

One officer who contacted the Belfast Telegraph said: "As a serving police officer, my own family do not know what I do. I have had to move house and out of the town I lived as advised by senior officers for 'security reasons'. I deleted social media accounts... now my full name and initials are widely available. It's a complete disaster".

The officer added: "At a time where morale is already at a record low and we feel completely unsupported by senior management, this happens."

The PSNI has been contacted for a response. A press conference has been called by Assistant Chief Constable Chris Todd for 8.45pm tonight.

The Chair of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, Liam Kelly, expressed dismay and anger last night.

He is insisting an urgent inquiry is required and wants to hear from the Chief Constable and his senior colleagues the steps they intend taking to limit the damage to protect identities.

Mr Kelly said: "This is a breach of monumental proportions. Even if it was done accidentally, it still represents a data and security breach that should never have happened.

"Rigorous safeguards ought to have been in place to protect this valuable information which, if in the wrong hands, could do incalculable damage.

"The men and women I represent are appalled by this breach. They are shocked, dismayed and justifiably angry. Like me, they are demanding action to address this unprecedented disclosure of sensitive information.

"We have many colleagues who do everything possible to protect their police roles. We're fortunate that the PSNI spreadsheet didn't contain officer and staff home addresses, otherwise we would be facing a potentially calamitous situation.

"Inadequate or poor oversight of FOI procedures must be addressed and addressed urgently. New safeguards are obviously required to prevent this from ever happening again."

Ulster Unionist Policing Board representative Mike Nesbitt MLA, called for an Emergency Meeting of the PSNI watchdog tomorrow.

He said: "I have requested the Board call an Emergency Meeting tomorrow when the Board can hear directly from the PSNI's Senior Executive Team.

"It is imperative that officers, staff and their families and friends understand how seriously this breach is being taken and that the Board is determined to fulfil its oversight and challenge functions appropriately.

"There are several issues here. First, ensuring those who now feel themselves at risk are given a realistic assessment of the implications of the data breach.

"Second, why was there no 'fail safe' mechanism to prevent this information being uploaded.

"Third, there is the question of whether it was a genuine mistake and here, the principle of innocent until proven guilty applies.

"I view this like a serious incident when people are seriously physically injured. The priority is to assist the injured. Only after that do you turn to examine the other issues. In other words, my thoughts are with those whose names have been released into the public domain, who had a reasonable expectation this would never happen."

Alliance leader and former Justice Minister Naomi Long MLA said that the sheer scale of the data breach was serious worrying.

"This level of data breach is clearly of profound concern, not least to police officers, civilian staff, and their families, who will be feeling incredibly vulnerable and exposed tonight and in the days ahead," said Mrs Long.

"Immediate action must be taken to offer them proper information, support, guidance and necessary reassurances regarding their and their families' security.

"Whilst the personal data has now been removed, once such information has been published online, it leaves an indelible footprint.

"That such sensitive information could ever have been held in a manner open to such a breach is unconscionable and will require serious investigation; however, the most urgent issue is supporting those whose security has been compromised.

"Alliance representatives on the Policing Board are seeking an urgent meeting of the Board to be convened with PSNI Senior Management Team to address this unprecedented security breach."

[mongers]

Catastrophic seems like the right word here:

Catastrophic PSNI blunder identifies every serving police officer and civilian
...snip...

This on top of the Electoral commission leaving their data open to hackers for months and months. It includes all versions of the electoral roll, their own email servers.

[Sheilbh]

This on top of the Electoral commission leaving their data open to hackers for months and months. It includes all versions of the electoral roll, their own email servers.

That one doesn't worry me so much.

As someone who's done those types of notifications the language they used and the legal tests around notification it looks to me very much like a "the back door was open, we can't rule out that someone came in" situation. You notify because you can't eliminate the possibility that there is a risk, but you don't have any evidence that there actually is a risk. Also, again from the language in the statements, the months (or years) doesn't seem unusual to me for the type of breach that language suggests.

Also the electoral roll is available for sale (for the open roll), I think about 40% opt out so would be on the full register and their data could have been exposed, but it's relatively benign information. Plus we have a very, very analogue (and thus quite secure) electoral system - I will never understand countries experimenting with systems more advanced than paper and pencil for their democratic process.

Of course the risk is if someone had that information plus other details - so I think the Electoral Commission covers England and Wales and, as I say, my read is that it was a covering notification - but if dissident Republicans, say, had the PSNI data with officers names and assignments, plus the full Northern Irish electoral roll....

Edit: Incidentally on the PSNI breach - I fully get the "no-one individual to blame, it's a systemic failure" approach. But given the sensitivity of this data and the risk given that we've seen a police officer shot in Northern Ireland in the last year or two, I feel like actually the individual who fucked up probably should be fired (not least because releasing an Excel to an FOIA request seems fairly basic) but also chances are some senior heads should roll as well. As the article says it is very, very common for police officers in Northern Ireland to completely segment their lives (especially Catholic officers) to avoid the risk of attack to their families. It's not like GB on this.

[Jacob]

Yeah IMO "systemic failure" just kicks the responsibility up the ranks. Who's the people responsible for the systems failing? Why weren't better systems put in place.

[Sheilbh]

So there was a Guardian article I read earlier today that I was a bit non-plussed by (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/08/khan-tells-people-to-shun-nonsense-tiktok-craze-on-oxford-street). It basically said Khan was warning people not to "take part in a social media craze" from TikTok on Oxford Street and that is was "nonsense". There'd also be a heightened police presence on Oxford Street.

I think it must have been wanting to give some attenction to Khan's statement (which is news) without amplifying the TikTok craze. But as someone not on TikTok I got to the end of the article absolutely none the wiser what the craze was, what might happen or why there were more police in Oxford Street than normal - which I'm not sure is necessarily getting the balance right

Now some clips from a BBC journalist and apparently it was some TikTok video that went viral saying they were going to loot JD Sports this afternoon.

Whole thing is odd but feel like we might see more of it. Something entirely organised (in plain sight in this case) over social media, plus the weirdness of the Mayor warning against it (and the press reporting it) without actually explaining what they're meaning because most people aren't on those social media circles. Feels like a challenge for press, police, politicians etc need to maybe grapple with (not sure they got the balance right here) because while this is utterly unpolitical it feels not a million miles from the way you have online conspiracy theories spreading and the same dilemma of amplifying v combatting.

[Sheilbh]

Thought the Economist Britain column this week was interesting, and goes against some of the "Bowling Alone" idea. Not least because I suspect the growth in hobbyists are actually, possibly enabled by the internet and always interesting to see the opposite to the atomising impact of technology:

From wild swimming to grouse shooting, Britain is in hock to hobbyists
Beware the hobby lobby
Aug 9th 2023

Hobbies shape a nation. For proof, drive to Bransdale, a grouse-shooting estate in the North York Moors. Providing a home for red grouse, a fast plump bird that is hard to shoot, requires a landscape as artificial as any garden. Controlled burning creates a mix of young and old heather, giving the bird something to eat and somewhere to live respectively; potential predators such as stoats are removed by skilled full-time gamekeepers. It is beautiful, barren and familiar.

Grouse shooting sculpts the British countryside. About 7% of British land is given over to the sport. In Scotland, roughly 15% of the country is grouse moor. At 16,000 acres, Bransdale is the same size as Bradford, England's tenth-biggest city. Considering the 12,500 or so people who do it each year could fit inside the ground of Oxford United, who play in the third tier of English football, it is a remarkable footprint. A niche pastime gives the country's uplands their unique look.

The sport, whose season begins on August 12th, is only the most extreme example of a hobby shaping Britain. Yet the power of hobbyists can be seen in everything from the regulation of polluting cars in London to rows over sewage. Hobbyists are the most powerful yet overlooked force in British politics. Call it the hobby lobby. Its influence is everywhere.

People overstate the power of better-organised and well-funded lobbyists. Capital rarely has its way. Britain's finance sector, which accounts for roughly 10% of tax revenue, had its business model shredded by the Conservative government, which left the eu with a deal that offered little for the country's banks. Workers have fared no better. In a supposed age of union militancy, most of them have managed little better than inflation-matching pay rises. Governments grumble about unions, but they do not quake.

By contrast, when hobbyists come calling, governments tremble. Images of raw sewage being pumped into Britain's waterways have hurt the Tories as much as a failing health service or rising taxes. Why? Because wild-swimmers have established themselves as one of Britain's potent hobby lobbies. The Outdoor Swimming Society, which does what it says on the tin, had 300 members in 2006. It now boasts nearly 200,000. Believe it or not, England's waters are in a better state today than in the 1990s. In contrast to the 1990s, however, a sewage spill today means a retired English teacher from Sussex cannot go for her weekly dip. Woe betide any government who denies her that.

Wild-swimmers are not the first to whip the government to their will. The Campaign for Real Ale (Camra), an association of beer lovers, is probably Britain's most successful hobby lobby. It campaigned for years against the "tie", which forced landlords to buy overpriced beer from the brewers that owned the freehold of their pub. An industry worth £20bn wanted to keep it; the hirsute activists won. The government scrapped it in 2014. Even the Treasury whimpers in the face of Big Hobby. Britain's tax code is littered with exemptions for small-time brewers, to encourage people to turn a brewing hobby into a job.

In a crisis, the wishes of hobbyists come first. During the pandemic, mps inundated the government with pleading to let garden centres reopen, recalls one baffled adviser. The calls were heeded. An exemption from lockdown followed. Horticulturalists sometimes shape matters of state. Northern Ireland's garden centres provided the emblematic example during Britain's negotiations with the eu over the province. A generation ago, talks in the province involved secret haggling with terrorists; now it involves placating Ulster's rosebush tenders.

Hobbyists are able to secure carve-outs of even controversial policies. London's "ultra-low emission zone" charges polluting cars £12.50 a day to enter the capital, triggering a backlash in the city's car-dependent fringe. Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, stuck with the policy, arguing the controversy was a price worth paying for cleaner air. Classic cars, however, are exempt. White van drivers gripe about their diesel vehicles being hit; someone pootling around Richmond Park in a 60-year-old mg, however, has no such problem. A fight with hobbyists is not worth having.

Taking on hobbyists is painful, after all. Sir Tony Blair regretted two pieces of domestic legislation the most: one was the Freedom of Information Act, which let nosy citizens see what their government was doing; the second was the Hunting Act, which banned fox hunting in England and Wales. "If I'd proposed solving the pension problem by compulsory euthanasia for every fifth pensioner I'd have got less trouble for it," recalled Sir Tony. Explanations for the anger ranged from its cultural footprint to the jobs it guaranteed in rural areas. A more important fact was overlooked: people hunted foxes because they enjoyed it. When the government stopped them, they were furious.

You will take my hobby from my cold dead hands

Perhaps this explains why grouse shooting has survived so long. Activists loathe the sport. Up to 500,000 birds are killed each season. But neither main party has any plans to ban it. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has 1.2m members, but its royal charter forbids it from directly opposing "field sports". People who love watching birds are matched by those who love to shoot them. When two hobbies collide, stalemate can follow.

Politicians fear the hobby lobby. They should learn from it instead. The most influential party in British politics over the past decade was the UK Independence Party, which was always more of a hobby than a project for political power. Leaving the EU was a curious obsession for a few odd men, but they got their wish in the end. Politics has professionalised in the past few decades. Yet skilled operators in the Labour and the Conservatives were no match for a bunch of dedicated amateurs. In British politics, the hobbyist will always have his way.

This also aligns with the polling from Pew Research on what makes life meaningful


I also wonder if this is part of the power of NIMBYism. In many ways they are local hobbyists. It's not astro-turfed or fake, but is instead made up of broadly well-meaning, interested people keeping an eye on what's happening in their area, getting petitions signed and campaigning with their neighbours. Arrayed against them are councillors and property developers. Capital and labour can go hang, but a well motivated, organised campaign in your constituency/council ward seems like a far more real threat. It possibly also explains why 7% of British land is golf courses (often with green belt protection).

The point on garden centres is really true. During covid I think they were re-opened at the same times as places of worship (in a socially distanced way) and I've heard a few MPs say that was the lockdown issue they received most complaints about from constituents. Which again I always think is useful to remember when people focus on the anti-lockdown fringe screaming about liberty and bio-politics, they were very much a fringe

[Gups]

How on earth do you think that 7% of British land is golf courses? Surely you have eyes and have seen a bit of the country? I know Shelter mendaciously claimed that it was 2% but that has been comprehesively debunked - it's really something like 0.2%-0.7%

And gold courses don't have green belt protection. They are often on green belt which isn't fertile land because its literally the only economically beneficial use to which the land can be put.

[Sheilbh]

How on earth do you think that 7% of British land is golf courses? Surely you have eyes and have seen a bit of the country? I know Shelter mendaciously claimed that it was 2% but that has been comprehesively debunked - it's really something like 0.2%-0.7%

Fair. I have absolutely no idea where I got it from either

It's a number that was very confidently in my head, but I've no idea where it came from. And you're right it's nonsense.

And gold courses don't have green belt protection. They are often on green belt which isn't fertile land because its literally the only economically beneficial use to which the land can be put.

Sure but isn't that the issue with the green belt to an extent. It's not protected for any reason like natural beauty, or biodiversity etc - and it's not necessarily a public utility. It is just land around cities that is very difficult to develop, which I don't think is how it's commonly understood (I think people see it as more like AONB).

[Josquius]

7% sounds a lot like 0.7% 

Golf courses are one of those things where obviously they're not a huge deal nationally, but on a local level, especially round our cities, they really can be.
You can see this sort of thing parsed in those who would claim the UK is full and there's nowhere left to build- well under 10% of the country is built upon but from central London it may not look this way.

Though I would agree some golf courses are a bit of a issue. Huge use of land providing a massive blocker for a tiny niche of people.
There's one near here in Wallsend which could really be better used - if at least for a park open to all.

And on green belts - isn't the point not that it's difficult to develop and rather to stop cities colliding?