Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

[...]and interestingly even EU lawyers admit that legally we don't have to pay a thing - which make you wonder what the EU politicians are playing at.

Oh I'm gonna take a wild guess...blackmail?

Fear. Blackmail, games.

Only things are ringing hollow....

Stranger83 wrote:
- and interestingly even EU lawyers admit that legally we don't have to pay a thing - which make you wonder what the EU politicians are playing at.

Nope, that's a very severe misquote. EU lawyers have said they don't have the means to enforce payment.

Which is natural because the usual way EU gets fines, etc paid is by withholding EU funds going to that country, and this not being a trade dispute it can't be taken up to the WTO.

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
- and interestingly even EU lawyers admit that legally we don't have to pay a thing - which make you wonder what the EU politicians are playing at.

Nope, that's a very severe misquote. EU lawyers have said they don't have the means to enforce payment.

Which is natural because the usual way EU gets fines, etc paid is by withholding EU funds going to that country, and this not being a trade dispute it can't be taken up to the WTO.

And outside the EU. Their courts do not have jurisdiction (ie the main EU court that's not national) or payment against us. They could rule but have no legal enforcement powers.

The only way is Hague, or UN etc.
And they would not take such a case at any rate sensibly.

The EU has not said that the UK must pay it 100 B Euros for unspecified services. They have said there are a number of financial commitments the UK made as part of its membership, such as the pension fund for EU civil servants, which need to be resolved as part of resigning membership.

The total of these is not known, because it has to be worked out, and of course the UK can argue about what gets presented.

The EU has said that the detail of this financial settlement is one of the three key points that must be resolved before moving on to the negotiations about the post-Brexit situation.

While the EU does not have the means to compel payment, fairly obviously the EU is not going to be favourably disposed towards the UK if the situation is not resolved satisfactorily, and we will end up with a bad Brexit negotiation that will lead to a worse situation for Britain in the end.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU has not said that the UK must pay it 100 B Euros for unspecified services. They have said there are a number of financial commitments the UK made as part of its membership, such as the pension fund for EU civil servants, which need to be resolved as part of resigning membership.

The total of these is not known, because it has to be worked out, and of course the UK can argue about what gets presented.

The EU has said that the detail of this financial settlement is one of the three key points that must be resolved before moving on to the negotiations about the post-Brexit situation.

While the EU does not have the means to compel payment, fairly obviously the EU is not going to be favourably disposed towards the UK if the situation is not resolved satisfactorily, and we will end up with a bad Brexit negotiation that will lead to a worse situation for Britain in the end.

Actually, they originally said £50bn, then increased it by £40bn to cover the EU farm subsidies, so we know that at least £40n is because they EU still wants the UK to pay for EU programs rather than reduce the program considering it now has less money (or ask other contries to finally pay into the pot)

As for that £50bn being for pensions - the average pension pot in the EU is circa £150k - now we all know the EU is a mass gravey train so lets say they all have a £1mn pound pension pot - for this to make £50bn it would mean the EU has 50,000 employees (which it hasn't) and that the UK is solely responsible for the accrued pension pots (which it isn't)

Now off cause the EU is going to want some money from us - they want the best deal for the EU. The fact is however that the way to do a negotiation is to do a negotiation, not make a demand with a promise that you may negotiate in the future.

It's pretty basic really, considering we have no obligation to pay £80bn at all then the EU needs to sit down and talk with us if they want us to pay it and explain what we are getting for that money. If they don't then we definitely should just walk away, and I don't think there is a single country in the world that would judge us for doing so as not a single one of them would pay that either.

 jhe90 wrote:

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
- and interestingly even EU lawyers admit that legally we don't have to pay a thing - which make you wonder what the EU politicians are playing at.

Nope, that's a very severe misquote. EU lawyers have said they don't have the means to enforce payment.

Which is natural because the usual way EU gets fines, etc paid is by withholding EU funds going to that country, and this not being a trade dispute it can't be taken up to the WTO.

And outside the EU. Their courts do not have jurisdiction (ie the main EU court that's not national) or payment against us. They could rule but have no legal enforcement powers.

The only way is Hague, or UN etc.
And they would not take such a case at any rate sensibly.

That's very debatable though, it could fall under the jurisdiction because these treaties were made when the UK was still a EU member. It also depends if this needs to be resolved before they can complete article 50 negotiations, if the UK hasn't left yet the ECJ certainly will have jurisdiction. Its a lot of legal games anyway with some settlement in the middle.

Its also about reputation in the world, a country that does not pay its contractual debts so to speak is not looked on favourably. Will the negative reputation costs outweigh the actual costs? Hard to say.

The NHS "must learn" from Friday's cyber-attack and upgrade its IT systems, the home secretary has said

With what? I ask. Their money has gone on other things, not new software.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39906019

I feel attacking a country's health system should be considered akin to a terror act. I hope they can find those responsible.

Stranger83 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU has not said that the UK must pay it 100 B Euros for unspecified services. They have said there are a number of financial commitments the UK made as part of its membership, such as the pension fund for EU civil servants, which need to be resolved as part of resigning membership.

The total of these is not known, because it has to be worked out, and of course the UK can argue about what gets presented.

The EU has said that the detail of this financial settlement is one of the three key points that must be resolved before moving on to the negotiations about the post-Brexit situation.

While the EU does not have the means to compel payment, fairly obviously the EU is not going to be favourably disposed towards the UK if the situation is not resolved satisfactorily, and we will end up with a bad Brexit negotiation that will lead to a worse situation for Britain in the end.

Actually, they originally said £50bn, then increased it by £40bn to cover the EU farm subsidies, so we know that at least £40n is because they EU still wants the UK to pay for EU programs rather than reduce the program considering it now has less money (or ask other contries to finally pay into the pot)

As for that £50bn being for pensions - the average pension pot in the EU is circa £150k - now we all know the EU is a mass gravey train so lets say they all have a £1mn pound pension pot - for this to make £50bn it would mean the EU has 50,000 employees (which it hasn't) and that the UK is solely responsible for the accrued pension pots (which it isn't)

Now off cause the EU is going to want some money from us - they want the best deal for the EU. The fact is however that the way to do a negotiation is to do a negotiation, not make a demand with a promise that you may negotiate in the future.

I don't think you're understanding the process. Negotiations will start with the exit bill. Once that's settled talks will resume on trade, movement, etc.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-budget-idUSKBN15N2AN

EU wants to agree formula for Britain's exit bill, not final amount

EU officials said the possible bill of 55 to 60 billion euros that has been mentioned in Brussels since last year was only a very rough estimate.

Any number bandied out by the press has no relevance until both parties agree to the methodology, and since the May government has not lifted a finger the war is fought on the media front alone... and the clock is ticking.

And again, half the bill are credit guarantees to Ireland and Ukraine which will be repaid with interest at the same time those countries.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've been on God's Earth for 40 odd years, and in that time, one theme keeps repeating itself time after time:

If you raise taxes, the rich will take their money elsewhere and they won't invest etc etc

We know from things like the Panama papers that the rich are actively avoiding and evading tax regardless of what the tax rate is.

They do not want to pay. Period.

So this horsegak about the rich going abroad and trickle down economics is just that: horsegak!

Yet this myth persists year after year.

Its not a myth, your error is in not understanding the defintiion between rich and super-rich.

The rich have to move accounts etc and set up offshores etc, and will do so.

The super rich simply don't pay tax, end of. any tax they do pay is at a knock down percentage and then the government has to negotiate for it.

It would be nice to get companies like Amazon to pay tax, or major hedge fund managers. Nothing changes for them.

Your 'average' millionaire will move sticks if they have to. This is what they did in the 60's and 70's.




Now most governments will not go as far as 60's- 70's higher rate taxation. But Corbyn is hell bent on bringing back the 70's trades unionism, and has a loony list of what he will want to pay for. Most of these things are 'nice' (if we overlook the heavy hand of the old left needed to maintain this spending on the backs of the populace) but we cant afford them all. +5% higher rate would just be the start. Corbyn is not unintelligent, he wont want to tell people about the 70% or so higher rate he would need to implement, and that is a realistic minimum, I don't think he would have any problems with a full 90% high rate tax if it would buy him the Trades Union controlled loony left dream of his.

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU has not said that the UK must pay it 100 B Euros for unspecified services. They have said there are a number of financial commitments the UK made as part of its membership, such as the pension fund for EU civil servants, which need to be resolved as part of resigning membership.

The total of these is not known, because it has to be worked out, and of course the UK can argue about what gets presented.

The EU has said that the detail of this financial settlement is one of the three key points that must be resolved before moving on to the negotiations about the post-Brexit situation.

While the EU does not have the means to compel payment, fairly obviously the EU is not going to be favourably disposed towards the UK if the situation is not resolved satisfactorily, and we will end up with a bad Brexit negotiation that will lead to a worse situation for Britain in the end.

Actually, they originally said £50bn, then increased it by £40bn to cover the EU farm subsidies, so we know that at least £40n is because they EU still wants the UK to pay for EU programs rather than reduce the program considering it now has less money (or ask other contries to finally pay into the pot)

As for that £50bn being for pensions - the average pension pot in the EU is circa £150k - now we all know the EU is a mass gravey train so lets say they all have a £1mn pound pension pot - for this to make £50bn it would mean the EU has 50,000 employees (which it hasn't) and that the UK is solely responsible for the accrued pension pots (which it isn't)

Now off cause the EU is going to want some money from us - they want the best deal for the EU. The fact is however that the way to do a negotiation is to do a negotiation, not make a demand with a promise that you may negotiate in the future.

I don't think you're understanding the process. Negotiations will start with the exit bill. Once that's settled talks will resume on trade, movement, etc.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-budget-idUSKBN15N2AN

EU wants to agree formula for Britain's exit bill, not final amount

EU officials said the possible bill of 55 to 60 billion euros that has been mentioned in Brussels since last year was only a very rough estimate.

Any number bandied out by the press has no relevance until both parties agree to the methodology, and since the May government has not lifted a finger the war is fought on the media front alone... and the clock is ticking.

And again, half the bill are credit guarantees to Ireland and Ukraine which will be repaid with interest at the same time those countries.

No, I do get that that is the process that the EU wants. I'm just saying that is not how negotiations work.

I've been involved I numerous negotiations in my life, both with new customers and leaving customers and I have never in my year of negotiations gone into a negotiation saying 'the fee is £xxx and once you agree to pay that we'll talk about what you get for that money'

I'm just saying that isn't how negotiations work - they never have and I'm prepared to say right now that is bet everything I own that they never will be done this way. If you dont legally owe anything (which even the EU lawyers agree we dont) then you need to discuss what you are prepared to offer for the money you want, if your not going to do that then why would anyone I their right mind agree to that?

If you wanted to buy Apple's from me and I said if you pay me £1 I may discuss selling you an Apple would you agree to that?

Again, I do agree that if we do get a deal on things like the EU space program and such we should pay into the EU budget - but to pay without knowing what we are getting, and with no legal obligation to pay would just be insane.

That is not the situation, though.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is not the situation, though.

What about what I said is not the situation though?

While t there are a few things that we will need to pay as they are things that have already been spent (such as the EU employee pensions that have already been accrued) as I've already pointed out the bill for these is considerably less than the £50bn (or £80bn at current count) and will probably be more than covered by the £7bn we have in the EU investment bank or the circa £27bn that is our portion of EU property and loans made by the EU - so in terms of actual legal requirements to pay then we are.more than covered.

The rest of it is money that is yet to be spent - which there is no legal requirement to pay as the EU could (and indeed like any other government that suffers a massive drop in expected income,should) do is reduce spending, but it'll never do that. It therefore want a the UK to pay in still - which is fair IF we are getting something in return, but what isn't fair is to expect us to pay in without.knowing what we are going to get for the money - and I defy anyone to pay a bill that they don't ha e to pay without knowing what they will get for that money (and if you disagree please send me a pm of your address so I can send you a bill for £200 and I might the send you £200 of minis for your collection)

Stranger83 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is not the situation, though.

What about what I said is not the situation though?

While t there are a few things that we will need to pay as they are things that have already been spent (such as the EU employee pensions that have already been accrued) as I've already pointed out the bill for these is considerably less than the £50bn (or £80bn at current count) and will probably be more than covered by the £7bn we have in the EU investment bank or the circa £27bn that is our portion of EU property and loans made by the EU - so in terms of actual legal requirements to pay then we are.more than covered.

The rest of it is money that is yet to be spent - which there is no legal requirement to pay as the EU could (and indeed like any other government that suffers a massive drop in expected income,should) do is reduce spending, but it'll never do that. It therefore want a the UK to pay in still - which is fair IF we are getting something in return, but what isn't fair is to expect us to pay in without.knowing what we are going to get for the money - and I defy anyone to pay a bill that they don't ha e to pay without knowing what they will get for that money (and if you disagree please send me a pm of your address so I can send you a bill for £200 and I might the send you £200 of minis for your collection)

Aye. They want promise of payment for what is yet unknown.
If we where making a net gain vs EU assets then yes. We need to pay them whatever that gain is valued at. And contribute to say space program id we want benefits.

But not pay 50-80 billion pounds! For no guarantee of what that large amount of money would get.
A sum equal to at least 2 entire years of defense and procurement budgets.

We should not be handing the EU a blank cheque to spend as they wish. They need to be very specific as to what we're paying for, and what concessions we'll get in return (trade, space programs, intelligence etc).

But that's how contracts wirk; you break the contract, settle the bill and negotiate a new contract.

There will be plenty of to and fro to establish which parts we should pay, but I've no objection to paying for projects we started, and settling the bill before we move on.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
We should not be handing the EU a blank cheque to spend as they wish. They need to be very specific as to what we're paying for, and what concessions we'll get in return (trade, space programs, intelligence etc).

That's exactly why the amount isn't confirmed. The amounts that have been bandied about are all from financial institutions and likely an aggregate amount of what they believe is the UKs existing liabilities and commitments over the next ten years or so. These are likely to be split as follows:-

Ongoing revenue commitments (pensions for example) from for example UK citizens working for the EU on the UK's behalf dependant on how that is split. You might have teams specifically tasked to complete a project that the UK signed up to until completion or other revenue expenditure that the UK has contractually agreed to be a part for a certain period of time. One way or another the UK will have to pay these because it has already committed contractually to them. Either it pulls out and has to pay the costs for terminating the contract early or it continues until the end of the project/expenditure.

You have ongoing capital projects that the UK has signed contractually to contribute to. This could be building new schools throughout the EU (as an example only). As above if it terminates the contract then as with most (sensible) contracts the party terminating has to pay costs (or it commits until the end of the project)

You have committed projects, so ones where ink has been applied but work has not yet commenced (so say it has a 2019 start date). In this case dependent on the contract there may or not be a break clause that allows the UK to step away without having to pay costs (say it was for building schools in Libya and the UK pulling out just means less schools). Alternatively a major project may not have a break clause as you simply can't pull the plug on one large capital project (lets say building a spaceport in Spain). In this case there will likely again be termination costs.

Finally there are those which the project that are still in the preparation phase and there has been little financial expenditure. As there is no committed contract the UK can choose whether it stays or leaves these projects (and will need to commit one way or another to the project in the negotiations and then it would be liable for these costs) - for example lets say it's discussions on new batch of satellites to monitor air pollution. If it stays in then it can access the data, if not it either ignores the issue or has to contract out for it's own satellites (which might still be 75% of the cost of the EU project).

HOWEVER

The thing that people forget is that same applies to the EU as well. It is likely to have financial commitments to the UK as well (for example redeveloping a run down area in Huddersfield). This is where the negotiations come in - if the UK wants the EU to continue funding this then this may be on the proviso it commits a 'regional development fund' until 2025. However the negotiations might result in the UK not having to commit to the this fund but that the EU will pull out of the Huddersfield project and any of the existing liabilities the UK will have to bear (for example the UK government may drop the project and pay off any existing contracts and then let the area that was going to be redeveloped to go to ruin). The UK payment to the EU might go down on this, but some of this 'saving' might have to be paid to contractors for termination of contracts.

Hence the final total will be a combination of all these factors. There are papers and MPs (like Boris the clown) that are showing a complete misunderstanding of what the discussion on the financial implications mean.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
We should not be handing the EU a blank cheque to spend as they wish. They need to be very specific as to what we're paying for, and what concessions we'll get in return (trade, space programs, intelligence etc).

Exactly. Present us a very clear itemised balance like any accountent would understand.

Our assets and money owed to us, held in trust, loans we gave. Etc.

, our money we owe, prices for various aspects of the EU deal costed and listed.
That are fixed including "exit fee" and per anaum charges.

Then we can decide if fair...

....




..politics is in a weird place currently huh ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39882972

Holding the 8 June general election is expected to cost the taxpayer more than £143m, the BBC understands.
The government estimate is an increase of 16% from the £123m it budgeted for the 2015 general election.
The price tag reflects the scale of the operation to staff tens of thousands of polling stations, process millions of votes and distribute candidates' mailings.
The cost of last year's EU referendum was similar.
That cost the taxpayer around £142m.
Taking the 2015 election as a guide, around 7.6 million postal votes were sent out. There were over 46 million poll cards and ballot papers printed to reflect 650 separate candidate lists for the election.
On the day of the vote itself, 41,000 polling stations were staffed for many hours by tens of thousands of people.

That evening, more than 30 million votes were counted by tens of thousands of people sorting through thousands of ballot boxes.
Holding national votes has become an expensive business.
Based on the government's estimate, obtained from the Cabinet Office and Northern Ireland Office, this would become the UK's most expensive election.
Since 2010, holding by-elections have on average each cost close to £240,000.
Costs for 8 June are higher than previous elections because this poll is being held on a stand-alone basis. Often joint local and national elections are held, where administrative costs can be shared between different bodies polling on the same day, such as councils.
Campaign trail
The anticipated costs may also reflect expectations over turnout, the number of candidates and parties standing and how many people are expected to vote.
The deadline to hold the national poll on the same day as this May's local elections had passed by the time Theresa May surprised many in Westminster and called for a snap election.
As a result, returning officers in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been allocated up to £101.6m in total for the 8 June poll.
The cost of delivering election mailings for candidates is expected to match the £41.7m spent on the 2015 general election, according to the Cabinet Office.
Spending by individual candidates and political parties on the campaign trail is treated separately.
For the 2015 general election, there was a total reported spend of over £39m by 57 parties and 23 non-party campaigners, according to the Electoral Commission.

blimey eh ?!

Stranger83 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is not the situation, though.

What about what I said is not the situation though?

While t there are a few things that we will need to pay as they are things that have already been spent (such as the EU employee pensions that have already been accrued) as I've already pointed out the bill for these is considerably less than the £50bn (or £80bn at current count) and will probably be more than covered by the £7bn we have in the EU investment bank or the circa £27bn that is our portion of EU property and loans made by the EU - so in terms of actual legal requirements to pay then we are.more than covered.

The rest of it is money that is yet to be spent - which there is no legal requirement to pay as the EU could (and indeed like any other government that suffers a massive drop in expected income,should) do is reduce spending, but it'll never do that. It therefore want a the UK to pay in still - which is fair IF we are getting something in return, but what isn't fair is to expect us to pay in without.knowing what we are going to get for the money - and I defy anyone to pay a bill that they don't ha e to pay without knowing what they will get for that money (and if you disagree please send me a pm of your address so I can send you a bill for £200 and I might the send you £200 of minis for your collection)

THe following:

A settled bill has not yet been presented.

The Brexit negotiations open with this as one of three points, which I mentioned earlier in the thread.

This basic fact invalidates everything you have argued. I don't know what else to say.

Ah so it's just a timing thing then?

You agree that we shouldn't pay for things like farm subsidies once we are out as that is an ongojng expense and and not something already spent, you are just waiting until the EU presents us with the bill before you state that - that's fair enough.

For the record, the 50bn (increased to £80bn) comes direct from the EU ''negotiation' team so it's reasonable to assume this is the rough figure they are aiming for - the fact that it includes ongoing expenses is also direct from the EU 'negotiation' team so again it's reasonable to assume they are including this in the £50bn.

Fifty billion as a final sum, spread over say, 5-10 years, would be pretty reasonable in my book.

Stranger83 wrote:
Ah so it's just a timing thing then?

You agree that we shouldn't pay for things like farm subsidies once we are out as that is an ongojng expense and and not something already spent, you are just waiting until the EU presents us with the bill before you state that - that's fair enough.

For the record, the 50bn (increased to £80bn) comes direct from the EU ''negotiation' team so it's reasonable to assume this is the rough figure they are aiming for - the fact that it includes ongoing expenses is also direct from the EU 'negotiation' team so again it's reasonable to assume they are including this in the £50bn.

Things yet to be spent are not just farming subsidies, but things like the European space program, the Erasmus programme, science research projects, and many other things that are well under way. Things that were costed and agreed based on how much funding every party agreed to put in. We could just pull out and say we want no more part of them, but that would be hugely damaging to the work and to the UK as we would lose all hope of access to other projects in future. The final bill can't be nailed down at the moment for two reasons 1) it depends on the date. The longer we wait, the smaller the codes as we continue to pay in now and 2) there is some disagreement over how much of ongoing costs we should pay, and which work. It's not just pensions.

 Steve steveson wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
Ah so it's just a timing thing then?

You agree that we shouldn't pay for things like farm subsidies once we are out as that is an ongojng expense and and not something already spent, you are just waiting until the EU presents us with the bill before you state that - that's fair enough.

For the record, the 50bn (increased to £80bn) comes direct from the EU ''negotiation' team so it's reasonable to assume this is the rough figure they are aiming for - the fact that it includes ongoing expenses is also direct from the EU 'negotiation' team so again it's reasonable to assume they are including this in the £50bn.

Things yet to be spent are not just farming subsidies, but things like the European space program, the Erasmus programme, science research projects, and many other things that are well under way. Things that were costed and agreed based on how much funding every party agreed to put in. We could just pull out and say we want no more part of them, but that would be hugely damaging to the work and to the UK as we would lose all hope of access to other projects in future. The final bill can't be nailed down at the moment for two reasons 1) it depends on the date. The longer we wait, the smaller the codes as we continue to pay in now and 2) there is some disagreement over how much of ongoing costs we should pay, and which work. It's not just pensions.

See - we seem to actually agree here. I also thing there are certain EU projects we should try to stay in and that it's only right that we pay our fair share of that, but working out which we want to stay in and which we don't (and how much we should pay for each) Is a negotiation, and the EU has said no negotiation until we agree to pay the bill - but they are refusing to say what we get for that bill because they won't negotiate on it.

I doubt if people want to hear this, but here's another rant from me!

The cyber attack debacle has strangely, produced no finger pointing.

May was Home Secretary for 7 years, and was ultimately responsible for cyber-security, so she should be carrying the can for this.

Unsurprisingly, our fawning and gak poor media are letting her off the hook.

Add Tory budget cuts to the NHS and it's a surprise that this never happened sooner, and yet, we're looking at a Tory landslide...

Who suggested a detailed itemized bill from the EU that we can look over before agreeing to anything? I think that's a great idea. A demand for a cash payment without question is insulting. And we can actually see what they plan to do with it and what they've been doing.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Who suggested a detailed itemized bill from the EU that we can look over before agreeing to anything? I think that's a great idea. A demand for a cash payment without question is insulting. And we can actually see what they plan to do with it and what they've been doing.

And the other thing is that it allows the negotiators to engage in some horse-trading.

For example, if the EU are legally committed to funding a new play park in Hull for say, £2 billion

and Britain is legally committed to paying £2 billion to refurbish Juncker's office (ok, I know an extreme example )

then we can agree to cancel those things out.

Hopefully, our negotiators will see that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

May was Home Secretary for 7 years, and was ultimately responsible for cyber-security, so she should be carrying the can for this.

Unsurprisingly, our fawning and gak poor media are letting her off the hook.

Add Tory budget cuts to the NHS and it's a surprise that this never happened sooner, and yet, we're looking at a Tory landslide...

"Patch your IT."
"We don't wanna."
"Patch your IT."
"We don't wanna, we'd rather buy stuff."
"Ok, sure, that's your choice, they're your funds. But you should patch your IT."
"Our IT broke, it's all your fault!"

Dail Mail reported that there were as many as 50+ breaches of NHS systems which the NHS failed to report to Police...I don't think you can pin this on the Tories, at least not 100%.

As much as people here would love a convenient scapegoat...

 Compel wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

May was Home Secretary for 7 years, and was ultimately responsible for cyber-security, so she should be carrying the can for this.

Unsurprisingly, our fawning and gak poor media are letting her off the hook.

Add Tory budget cuts to the NHS and it's a surprise that this never happened sooner, and yet, we're looking at a Tory landslide...

"Patch your IT."
"We don't wanna."
"Patch your IT."
"We don't wanna, we'd rather buy stuff."
"Ok, sure, that's your choice, they're your funds. But you should patch your IT."
"Our IT broke, it's all your fault!"

The buck stops at the desk of whatever man or woman is in charge of a company/army/business/agency etc etc

The excuse that underlings wouldn't obey the person at the top doesn't wash me


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Dail Mail reported that there were as many as 50+ breaches of NHS systems which the NHS failed to report to Police...I don't think you can pin this on the Tories, at least not 100%.

As much as people here would love a convenient scapegoat...

The Tories have been in power since 2010. In that time, MI5/GCHQ/NCA etc etc have issued numerous warnings about this kinda thing.

If the Tories are ignoring advice from the experts, then they should carry the can for it.

If the Tories are ignoring advice from the experts, then they should carry the can for it.

You're missing my point. Its not the Tories ignoring expert advice, its the hospitals themselves who are allegedly neglecting to notify Police of cyber attacks and breaches of their systems.