Do you want to discuss boring politics? (42 Viewers)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Far from it. He’s argued that the civil service prevents real expertise because people will ‘zig zag’ across departments for short periods of time (2 years).

This point I can identify with because I have first hand experience. I deal with HMRC as part of my job and the people rotate roughly every 2 years, are not experts in the field so when I ask detailed questions I get the old ‘I’ll get back to you on that’ and subsequently sent a gov.uk link I’ve already read and understood.

To go off a slight tangent, there was a scenario last year where the business I work for and a supplier of ours separately received completely contradictory advice from the same HMRC team. It causes problems for businesses trying to follow v complex regulations.

It’s ironic because these same civil service people would probably have frustrated a Corbyn government. After all, do you think a Labour cabinet minister proposed cutting the winter dual allowance or someone random in the treasury?

I am someone with real scientific expertise trying to get into the CS in the next few years. Will let you know how that goes…in any case, there is no incentive for civil servants to ‘frustrate’ the government of the day.

 

---

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Boris ran rings around him. Carrie ran rings around him ffs!

Who had the last laugh? It wasn’t either of the Johnson’s…

Sunak’s resignation triggered Boris’ downfall and it was Sunak who asked Cummings to come back into Number 10 when he became PM.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Far from it. He’s argued that the civil service prevents real expertise because people will ‘zig zag’ across departments for short periods of time (2 years).

This point I can identify with because I have first hand experience. I deal with HMRC as part of my job and the people rotate roughly every 2 years, are not experts in the field so when I ask detailed questions I get the old ‘I’ll get back to you on that’ and subsequently sent a gov.uk link I’ve already read and understood.

To go off a slight tangent, there was a scenario last year where the business I work for and a supplier of ours separately received completely contradictory advice from the same HMRC team. It causes problems for businesses trying to follow v complex regulations.

It’s ironic because these same civil service people would probably have frustrated a Corbyn government. After all, do you think a Labour cabinet minister proposed cutting the winter dual allowance or someone random in the treasury?

Many elements of the civil service frustrate governments of different persuasions

Might’ve missed previous comments but this isn’t just a Tory issue, Starmer recently commented on the tepid bath of managed decline in the civil service, John Reed basically said the home office wasn’t fit for purpose and Blunkett had major issues with Whitehall/civil service setup from memory. Pretty sure Cummins isn’t a Tory either

It’s obvious there are issues but I’m not convinced any government can make the necessary changes.

 

[Nuskyblue]

Far from it. He’s argued that the civil service prevents real expertise because people will ‘zig zag’ across departments for short periods of time (2 years).

This point I can identify with because I have first hand experience. I deal with HMRC as part of my job and the people rotate roughly every 2 years, are not experts in the field so when I ask detailed questions I get the old ‘I’ll get back to you on that’ and subsequently sent a gov.uk link I’ve already read and understood.

To go off a slight tangent, there was a scenario last year where the business I work for and a supplier of ours separately received completely contradictory advice from the same HMRC team. It causes problems for businesses trying to follow v complex regulations.

It’s ironic because these same civil service people would probably have frustrated a Corbyn government. After all, do you think a Labour cabinet minister proposed cutting the winter dual allowance or someone random in the treasury?

"Far from it. He’s argued that the civil service prevents real expertise because people will ‘zig zag’ across departments for short periods of time (2 years)."

This is true. My partner has been in a department for 4 years+ and is making her very much a departmental outlier in this sense but time served has made her an expert or at least the go to person for her very niche role.

It's all about job hopping to get you up the ladder.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Many elements of the civil service frustrate governments of different persuasions

Might’ve missed previous comments but this isn’t just a Tory issue, Starmer recently commented on the tepid bath of managed decline in the civil service, John Reed basically said the home office wasn’t fit for purpose and Blunkett had major issues with Whitehall/civil service setup from memory. Pretty sure Cummins isn’t a Tory either

It’s obvious there are issues but I’m not convinced any government can make the necessary changes.

Exactly. It’s convenient for people to dismiss Cummings if they disagree with him politically.

If they listen with an empathetic ear, what he’s actually saying applies equally to whichever party is in government. From my interpretation, it’s not really him looking back at his time in government and crying over spilled milk.

If anyone thinks the OBR and treasury officials would support a Corbynite (byword for left wing here) government is naive.

Looking around at the state of the country, we’re coming towards the end of what can be characterised as a ‘Blairite consensus’.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Exactly. It’s convenient for people to dismiss Cummings if they disagree with him politically.

If they listen with an empathetic ear, what he’s actually saying applies equally to whichever party is in government. From my interpretation, it’s not really him looking back at his time in government and crying over spilled milk.

If anyone thinks the OBR and treasury officials would support a Corbynite (byword for left wing here) government is naive.

Looking around at the state of the country, we’re coming towards the end of what can be characterised as a ‘Blairite consensus’.

Given who he was emulating, perhaps Thatcherite is more appropriate.

 

[mmttww]

Exactly. It’s convenient for people to dismiss Cummings if they disagree with him politically.

Don't see anyone dismissing him for that reason. He doesn't identify as a Tory anyway as far as I know. I read the article, and it reads like a bitter sixth former dipping his toes in the conspiracy theory water, and the statement about the Holocaust undermines any credibility the piece could have. Awful stuff.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Given who he was emulating, perhaps Thatcherite is more appropriate.

Economically, yes you’re right. But, the big changes Blair made were constitutional and have perhaps had unintended consequences.

For example, Blair probably didn’t intend for the Human Rights Act nor the ECHR to prevent deportation of violent criminals amongst other things.

 

[oscillatewildly]

I am someone with real scientific expertise trying to get into the CS in the next few years. Will let you know how that goes…in any case, there is no incentive for civil servants to ‘frustrate’ the government of the day.

Crikey. Are you safe handling Bunsen burners?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Not that it should yet again need pointing out to you, but nobody on here is going to be an apologist for child grooming.

Unfortunately, the damage is already done. No amount of posts from the same people who have all consistently tried to deflect or play down this issue is going to change that. There is a lot of sweating going on behind keyboards since the announcement of this inquiry, and it is extremely transparent. The amount of politicians and people in the public-eye who are softly changing their stance and hoping to get away quietly had originally similar behaviours reflective of some on this forum, who piled on other people for raising concerns previously.

The sad reality is that the background of these abusers makes those who are weak, uncomfortable. They don't have the balls to discuss or tackle the issue, so anyone else who does becomes the problem as they are easier to have a go at. The inquiry has triggered these same people as they want it swept under the carpet. The fact it looks like it isn't going to be has kicked off this reaction. I haven't seen a single one of you say that this is a good thing, or that we can finally do something to get to the bottom of it, and stop it. In fact, even when posting an account of one of the victims, this was ignored, as one poster thought they knew better - which was of course that we should basically forget about it.

I suspect this thread will make for very interesting reading in the coming months and years.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Unfortunately, the damage is already done. No amount of posts from the same people who have all consistently tried to deflect or play down this issue is going to change that. There is a lot of sweating going on behind keyboards since the announcement of this inquiry, and it is extremely transparent. The amount of politicians and people in the public-eye who are softly changing their stance and hoping to get away quietly had originally similar behaviours reflective of some on this forum, who piled on other people for raising concerns previously.

The sad reality is that the background of these abusers makes those who are weak, uncomfortable. They don't have the balls to discuss or tackle the issue, so anyone else who does becomes the problem as they are easier to have a go at. The inquiry has triggered these same people as they want it swept under the carpet. The fact it looks like it isn't going to be has kicked off this reaction. I haven't seen a single one of you say that this is a good thing, or that we can finally do something to get to the bottom of it, and stop it. In fact, even when posting an account of one of the victims, this was ignored, as one poster thought they knew better - which was of course that we should basically forget about it.

I suspect this thread will make for very interesting reading in the coming months and years.

Some of us are current or former teachers all of whom will have made safeguarding referrals to actively look out for the wellbeing of children. The idea that anyone would be sweating about something to bring people to justice is absurd.

 

[oscillatewildly]

Steady on, BSB, I was only having a little josh with you - A little matey jab to the upper arm.
Besides, that may be the first question they ask you at interview. Can't see that answer opening the door for a long career in the civil service.
Then again.
I'm just getting a little restless around here in the absence of our first signing.
Have we signed anyone?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Steady on, BSB, I was only having a little josh with you - A little matey jab to the upper arm.
Besides, that may be the first question they ask you at interview. Can't see that answer opening the door for a long career in the civil service.
Then again.
I'm just getting a little restless around here in the absence of our first signing.
Have we signed anyone?

I have been offered roles of that type in the CS already, but only on temporary contracts so had to decline. One I got through to the final round on was in making nerve agents at Porton Down…which may or may not put your mind at ease.

 

[chiefdave]

This inquiry is sounding a bit like when the government of the day makes a lot of noise about an announcement only for you to later discover its something they've already announced before.

So far we've had:

NCA promising to investigate and jail predators who are part of a grooming gang - what were they doing before?
Instead of having the previously promised local inquiries, we're now having a national enquiry that will look specifically for failings on a local level - so exactly like a local enquiry would then?
children's services to flag those at risk - again, what were they doing previously?
improvements in data collection around ethnicity - all for this, long overdue and one of the recommendations of the previous inquiry that hasn't been implemented. we've discussed multiple times on here that when you try and deep dive into the stats the quality of the data is appalling.

This all, of course, assumes anything happens in the short to medium term as there's already legal action being lodged to force a judicial review over the failure to implement the recommendations of the previous report which could grind everything to a halt.

 

[PVA]

This inquiry is sounding a bit like when the government of the day makes a lot of noise about an announcement only for you to later discover its something they've already announced before.

So far we've had:

NCA promising to investigate and jail predators who are part of a grooming gang - what were they doing before?
Instead of having the previously promised local inquiries, we're now having a national enquiry that will look specifically for failings on a local level - so exactly like a local enquiry would then?
children's services to flag those at risk - again, what were they doing previously?
improvements in data collection around ethnicity - all for this, long overdue. we've discussed multiple times on here that when you try and deep dive into the stats the quality of the data is appalling.

This all, of course, assumes anything happens in the short to medium term as there's already legal action being lodged to force a judicial review over the failure to implement the recommendations of the previous report which could grind everything to a halt.

Yes I'd much rather some changes and recommendations were actually implemented, rather than launch another inquiry- which presumably just delays any action? But apparently that makes me a grooming gang sympathiser so what do I know.

 

[chiefdave]

Yes I'd much rather some changes and recommendations were actually implemented, rather than launch another inquiry- which presumably just delays any action? But apparently that makes me a grooming gang sympathiser so what do I know.

The big change that is needed is the recording of ethnicity data, as without that how can you study the data for patterns.

However the previous inquiry found this is easier said than done. The main issue being you can only ask someone once they have been arrested and then they have the right to answer no comment. That's going to require a fundamental change to the law. Although I think, at least as an initial thought, I'd be in favour or getting rid of the right to answer no comment.

 

[oscillatewildly]

I have been offered roles of that type in the CS already, but only on temporary contracts so had to decline. One I got through to the final round on was in making nerve agents at Porton Down…which may or may not put your mind at ease.

Heard an amusing story about Porton Down in the '80's - although this may well be one of those 'generic' ones we've all heard - Like the one involving wearing headphones, lying on your bed, having a wank only to discover soon after that your Mum has left a cup of tea on the bedside table. The one where the junior/student nurse is tasked with being in attendance in the mortuary and given final orders - "Don't forget to put the shroud on for when the deceased's parent's arrive to view the body" - Which she does, leaving a naked body on view on the slab as she adorns the shroud. I digress.
Porton Down - The scientific experimental research facility which occasionally asks for human guinea pigs for certain 'harmless' trials, (almost entirely military) lured by a little extra pay of course.
Some lads that somebody who knew somebody else that knew and heard about went for a couple of days testing and on the final night went to a stomp at a local pub. The disco lights get into full swing and they are the only ones on the dance floor glowing fluorescent green.
Or it could have been orange. Resulting in the locals freaking out and not hanging around for the last dance.
An amusing anecdote for a short while until we started casting serious doubt upon it.

 

[mmttww]

Unfortunately, the damage is already done. No amount of posts from the same people who have all consistently tried to deflect or play down this issue is going to change that. There is a lot of sweating going on behind keyboards since the announcement of this inquiry, and it is extremely transparent. The amount of politicians and people in the public-eye who are softly changing their stance and hoping to get away quietly had originally similar behaviours reflective of some on this forum, who piled on other people for raising concerns previously.

The sad reality is that the background of these abusers makes those who are weak, uncomfortable. They don't have the balls to discuss or tackle the issue, so anyone else who does becomes the problem as they are easier to have a go at. The inquiry has triggered these same people as they want it swept under the carpet. The fact it looks like it isn't going to be has kicked off this reaction. I haven't seen a single one of you say that this is a good thing, or that we can finally do something to get to the bottom of it, and stop it. In fact, even when posting an account of one of the victims, this was ignored, as one poster thought they knew better - which was of course that we should basically forget about it.

I suspect this thread will make for very interesting reading in the coming months and years.

You are chatting so much sh*t here. It's like seeing someone ranting on the street, and you think they must be talking hands-free on their phone, but they're not. Fully in your own world. You ok hun?

 

[LarryGrayson]

civil service entry tests you how unibiased you are before you even get to interfew you wont get won without proving your not i failed at that ha ha ha

 

[SBT]

civil service entry tests you how unibiased you are before you even get to interfew you wont get won without proving your not i failed at that ha ha ha

Are you sure that’s why you failed?

 

[shmmeee]

Exactly. It’s convenient for people to dismiss Cummings if they disagree with him politically.

If they listen with an empathetic ear, what he’s actually saying applies equally to whichever party is in government. From my interpretation, it’s not really him looking back at his time in government and crying over spilled milk.

If anyone thinks the OBR and treasury officials would support a Corbynite (byword for left wing here) government is naive.

Looking around at the state of the country, we’re coming towards the end of what can be characterised as a ‘Blairite consensus’.

It’s not disagreement that there’s issue with pay structures in the civil service, which is what Ian is describing, to say that Cummings prescribed solution is a hodgepodge of vague conspiracy theories and things that sounded great on Substack until someone actually tried them and found them massively wanting. You want the criticism to be politically motivated so you don’t have to defend the nonsense he’s saying.

 

[mmttww]

You want the criticism to be politically motivated so you don’t have to defend the nonsense he’s saying.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

This inquiry is sounding a bit like when the government of the day makes a lot of noise about an announcement only for you to later discover its something they've already announced before.

So far we've had:

NCA promising to investigate and jail predators who are part of a grooming gang - what were they doing before?
Instead of having the previously promised local inquiries, we're now having a national enquiry that will look specifically for failings on a local level - so exactly like a local enquiry would then?
children's services to flag those at risk - again, what were they doing previously?
improvements in data collection around ethnicity - all for this, long overdue and one of the recommendations of the previous inquiry that hasn't been implemented. we've discussed multiple times on here that when you try and deep dive into the stats the quality of the data is appalling.

This all, of course, assumes anything happens in the short to medium term as there's already legal action being lodged to force a judicial review over the failure to implement the recommendations of the previous report which could grind everything to a halt.

Precisely. The reason I'm not jumping for joy at an inquiry is we've already had loads and I'd prefer to see action being taken now from those instead of another five years and millions of pounds for another report stating exactly the same things we've already heard before.

So for whoever it was accusing those not wanting an inquiry as being grooming gang apologists, I ask why do you want there to be five years of inaction when we already have recommendations to help combat the issue now? Sounds a bit like letting the grooming gangs off to me...

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Some of us are current or former teachers all of whom will have made safeguarding referrals to actively look out for the wellbeing of children. The idea that anyone would be sweating about something to bring people to justice is absurd.

People are sweating because the topic is of predominantly Muslim men. There hasn't been a single comment here that is positive about this inquiry, because even the potential discussion of it makes some uneasy. We have all kinds of mental gymnastics going on to try and dress it up as something else.

From the Casey report:

"We found many examples of organisations avoiding the topic altogether for fear of appearing racist, raising community tensions or causing community cohesion problems".

That same logic can be applied to many on here. It really doesn't matter how much you or others try and argue with it. It is past the point of de-escalation in that sense I'm afraid.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

You are chatting so much sh*t here. It's like seeing someone ranting on the street, and you think they must be talking hands-free on their phone, but they're not. Fully in your own world. You ok hun?

I'm perfectly fine.

I am not the one who has been on a campaign to dismiss the seriousness of an epidemic rape problem regarding children.

You can make funny comments and try to deflect from the reality, but what you've written regarding this issue is out there to see, and it won't be remembered well.

 

[chiefdave]

People are sweating because the topic is of predominantly Muslim men. There hasn't been a single comment here that is positive about this inquiry, because even the potential discussion of it makes some uneasy. We have all kinds of mental gymnastics going on to try and dress it up as something else.

improvements in data collection around ethnicity - all for this, long overdue and one of the recommendations of the previous inquiry that hasn't been implemented. we've discussed multiple times on here that when you try and deep dive into the stats the quality of the data is appalling

Not read all of it yet, its 200 pages, but the report seems to say we don't have enough data because in the majority of cases ethnicity isn't recorded. to get more details of ethnicity historically requires more scrutiny at a local level but we're no longer have local inquiries because they've been scooped up into another national one.

The previous inquiry had already reached the same conclusion and recommended the need to collect accurate data on ethnicity. Not sure why we need another enquiry and years of waiting to establish the same thing?

What nobody seems able to address is how this will actually occur. At present you would need to be under caution at the point at which you were asked to supply those details. Given that once under caution you have the right to 'no comment' how do you enforce the collection of ethnicity data?

 

[shmmeee]

Not sure I’ve ever read anything, certainly at this level of officialdom, where the pure fury and contempt drips off the page as much as this, and absolutely rightly so.





The fact that in 2025 this is recommendation number one and isn’t already well on its way through Parliament as well:

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Unfortunately, the damage is already done. No amount of posts from the same people who have all consistently tried to deflect or play down this issue is going to change that. There is a lot of sweating going on behind keyboards since the announcement of this inquiry, and it is extremely transparent. The amount of politicians and people in the public-eye who are softly changing their stance and hoping to get away quietly had originally similar behaviours reflective of some on this forum, who piled on other people for raising concerns previously.

The sad reality is that the background of these abusers makes those who are weak, uncomfortable. They don't have the balls to discuss or tackle the issue, so anyone else who does becomes the problem as they are easier to have a go at. The inquiry has triggered these same people as they want it swept under the carpet. The fact it looks like it isn't going to be has kicked off this reaction. I haven't seen a single one of you say that this is a good thing, or that we can finally do something to get to the bottom of it, and stop it. In fact, even when posting an account of one of the victims, this was ignored, as one poster thought they knew better - which was of course that we should basically forget about it.

I suspect this thread will make for very interesting reading in the coming months and years.

We don’t know the facts at best we are responding emotionally and at worst with prejudice
As I said to grendel the reason it’s now being undertaken where it wasn’t before has been explained you can either accept it or not

no one on here has is or will defend child abuse or rape let alone gang rape of children

 

[Captain Dart]

Precisely. The reason I'm not jumping for joy at an inquiry is we've already had loads and I'd prefer to see action being taken now from those instead of another five years and millions of pounds for another report stating exactly the same things we've already heard before.

So for whoever it was accusing those not wanting an inquiry as being grooming gang apologists, I ask why do you want there to be five years of inaction when we already have recommendations to help combat the issue now? Sounds a bit like letting the grooming gangs off to me...

Massive finger pointing exercise going on, various factions claiming the other side are to blame for inaction, the BBC trying hard to avoid using the P word, Rotherham MP Sarah Champion trying to get associated with taking action when recently she voted against a national enquiry, Naz Shah defending muslim communities, Maggie Oliver being positive but guarded about Casey, Lowe and Mcvey continuing their independant enquiry, Lee Anderson being a hypocrite, Raji Mihah and Sammy Woodhouse continuning their campaigning on the issue. Enough to make your head spin.

Jay's report was 7 years of nothing followed by very little action on carrying out it's recommendations. Do you think Starmer will ensure the next enquiry win't report till after the next General Election, I think there is a good chance of that.

 

[Sick Boy]

Unfortunately, the damage is already done. No amount of posts from the same people who have all consistently tried to deflect or play down this issue is going to change that. There is a lot of sweating going on behind keyboards since the announcement of this inquiry, and it is extremely transparent. The amount of politicians and people in the public-eye who are softly changing their stance and hoping to get away quietly had originally similar behaviours reflective of some on this forum, who piled on other people for raising concerns previously.

The sad reality is that the background of these abusers makes those who are weak, uncomfortable. They don't have the balls to discuss or tackle the issue, so anyone else who does becomes the problem as they are easier to have a go at. The inquiry has triggered these same people as they want it swept under the carpet. The fact it looks like it isn't going to be has kicked off this reaction. I haven't seen a single one of you say that this is a good thing, or that we can finally do something to get to the bottom of it, and stop it. In fact, even when posting an account of one of the victims, this was ignored, as one poster thought they knew better - which was of course that we should basically forget about it.

I suspect this thread will make for very interesting reading in the coming months and years.

Come on. There’s no one on here who’s an apologist for this kind of stuff. If anything rape, murder, child abuse etc are topics that unite those on both sides of the forum.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

People are sweating because the topic is of predominantly Muslim men. There hasn't been a single comment here that is positive about this inquiry, because even the potential discussion of it makes some uneasy. We have all kinds of mental gymnastics going on to try and dress it up as something else.

From the Casey report:

"We found many examples of organisations avoiding the topic altogether for fear of appearing racist, raising community tensions or causing community cohesion problems".

That same logic can be applied to many on here. It really doesn't matter how much you or others try and argue with it. It is past the point of de-escalation in that sense I'm afraid.

You've clearly decided what the truth is and worked backwards from the conclusion.

 

[SBT]

It really doesn't matter how much you or others try and argue with it. It is past the point of de-escalation in that sense I'm afraid.

Is this some kind of....threat?

It does beg the question why you continue to post regularly on a forum that you sincerely believe to be stuffed with child rape apologists

 

[CCFCSteve]

Not read all of it yet, its 200 pages, but the report seems to say we don't have enough data because in the majority of cases ethnicity isn't recorded. to get more details of ethnicity historically requires more scrutiny at a local level but we're no longer have local inquiries because they've been scooped up into another national one.

The previous inquiry had already reached the same conclusion and recommended the need to collect accurate data on ethnicity. Not sure why we need another enquiry and years of waiting to establish the same thing?

What nobody seems able to address is how this will actually occur. At present you would need to be under caution at the point at which you were asked to supply those details. Given that once under caution you have the right to 'no comment' how do you enforce the collection of ethnicity data?

Unless I’ve misunderstood the point, I think it’s a cop out from or on behalf of the various authorities Dave. The fact is if the perpetrator is refusing to answer I’m sure there’s ways and means to find or accurately assess ethnicity/heritage. These are criminal investigations afterall

There obviously wasn’t a willingness to do this before, hopefully there is now.

 

[SBAndy]

Is this some kind of....threat?

It does beg the question why you continue to post regularly on a forum that you sincerely believe to be stuffed with child rape apologists

Because he’s the enlightened one m8.

 

[mmttww]

I am not the one who has been on a campaign...

You've actually described your chat in this thread pretty well there as it goes. I'm sound with what I've said. You're not. I can live with that.