UPDATE It appears that the Guardian article on which this comment is based is factually incorrect on the price of the wine (the Guardian said the price was per bottle, which now seems to be untrue) and on the amount of gin (the Guardian says 2 bottles – as had the Sunday Times – when in fact it was two measures). So much of what I said did not make sense to me, does now in fact make sense. Frankly I should know better than to follow the Guardian uncritically, and what was always a minor piece by me now looks foolish. I leave it up with this update and explanation, if only as a reminder of my own fallibility…
ORIGINAL ARTICLE BEGINS
Hogmanay having just passed, it seems topical to write about alcohol, and I was struck by a very strange account in the Guardian of a dinner Liz Truss gave for a US trade delegation headed by the US trade secretary. The story is that she insisted on holding it at a private club owned by a Tory donor, and it was originally billed at £3,000 (though civil servants beat it down to £1,400).
Patronising a Tory donors’ establishment at public expense is obviously very dodgy. But I may part company with most of my readers when I say that the eventual cost of £1,400 is not massively over-expensive for a ministerial level dinner between trade delegations. The Guardian does not say how many people were involved, but judging by the drinks (of which more follows) I would guess at least 16. Having spent a career in diplomacy, the projection of a sense of power and importance by hospitality plays an important role since long before Henry VIII and the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Establishing good feeling and personal relationships between negotiating teams really is essential to the outcome of a prolonged and detailed negotiation. Perhaps the world ought not be like that, and it should not make a difference if ministers hosted delegations for dinner in the canteen, but it does make a difference.
In fact, you may be surprised that what initially struck me in the article was that the wines were not good enough to serve at such an occasion. From the Guardian:
Truss and her companions drank two bottles of dry gin, three £153 bottles of Pazo Barrantes Albariño, a Spanish white wine and two bottles of the French red Coudoulet de Beaucastel at £130 a bottle, it was reported.
I know the Albarino, and it is not especially good. In fact, as Trade Secretary Truss could have served a better English white wine at the same price. The Coudoulet de Beaucastel is a fairly robust Cotes Du Rhone and a surprising choice, even if only for American palates. These are £20 wines, at any vintage.
Now I am very aware that restaurants mark up wines shamelessly, generally around 300%, but £150 each for £20 wine? The club owner is half brother to Zac Goldsmith, and Truss’s desire to ingratiate herself with potential leadership bid allies has plainly overtaken her common sense. Paying lots of money for wine below the standard for the occasion is just useless.
Which brings me to the two bottles of gin. If the club charges £153 for a £20 bottle of Albarino, I presume it charges around £150 for a £20 bottle of gin. Which would give you a total booze bill of over £1,000 (assuming the mixers were free). That would leave only £400 for food, which would indicate in this kind of club rather too few people to drink that much booze.
You are just going to have to take my word for this, but American official delegations are highly abstemious when it comes to booze. I speak from long experience. British and other European diplomats are very happy to get stuck in, but the American official culture denigrates anything but the odd polite sip while on duty. I have been at dinners polishing off a sirloin steak washed down with lots of Margaux, and looking forward to the port, while the Americans opposite me toyed with their Caesar salads and drank iced water. Two bottles of gin and five bottles of wine at a dinner with an American delegation? Very peculiar.
I should say that I hosted a Belgian delegation at the National Liberal Club, a private club of which I was a member, while negotiating the UK/Belgium maritime boundary. It is not wrong to use a private club per se for public entertaining, and the NLC was both an impressive venue and tremendous value for money. There are also beautiful government venues where such events can be hosted – the Locarno Suite in the FCDO and the Painted Hall at Greenwich Maritime College being examples I used personally. It is not at all difficult to do much better than Truss did, much cheaper.
I do realise this is a trivial matter, but it sparked my interest for obvious reasons.
On the very much more important question, the interest in the United States government in negotiating a trade deal with the UK is very small indeed. Powerful protectionist lobbies in, inter alia, the spirits and financial services sectors in the USA are strongly negative, and the US farming lobby – the most obvious potential beneficiary – would only gain in the event of a relaxation of UK food standards that appears, thankfully, politically impossible. So the actual talks Truss was involved in are going nowhere, and doing so very slowly.
I am writing on my prison experiences and hope to publish the first article on that here tomorrow. Happy New Year everybody!
———————————————
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
Serving EU wine? Disgraceful. Shoulda been English/Welsh white, and a red from Oz/NZ/RSA/Chile/Argie. For a sweetie afterwards a Canadian Eiswein.
Serving English wine? We’re trying to woo them not poison them.
All that really matters is that Goldsmith’s half brother did ok out of it. Any potential deal with the US government will be considered purely secondary, for if this one doesn’t succeed there’ll be another one along shortly to be announced with great fanfare.
No dearieme. Britain is a Landmass in the North Sea that is dark for 2 3rd of the year with little sunlight and rains constantly not ideal for grapes unless you grow them hydroponically which affects flavour.
Is this another example of brexiteer logic where simply believing in Blighty beats science and the weather, because the soonest that type of Daily Mail addled thinking disperses the better.
If a British vineyard does happen to produce a great vintage then it’s more a exception rather than the norm. Probably good for Sarson’s though.
We do however make great real ale and Scots of course make the finest whisky in the world. Know your strengths and weaknesses.
We got a nice bottle of English wine last week from a chain called BevMo. It was ginger flavored and tasted like weak sherry with ginger in it. And I usually don’t like wine.
I’m no fan of the guardian and I have worked on plenty of corporate events when a bottle of Moët is charged at 800 quid or more, but when the story appears along side a story of children in Leeds without beds, and I walk past a housing association house on my street that is being auctioned off by the Peabody trust, that will do nothing but add another private landlord who will carve the house up into 5 flats and charge too market rent for them it’s hard not to be sick at Truss or indeed anyone spending from the treasury (even though I understand MMT)
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/02/leeds-bed-poverty-crisis-bex-wilson-zarach
Interesting as always Craig. And if I may say, it’s nice to read an article on here that doesn’t leave the world outlook so very much bleaker than before.
Personally, £20 for a bottle of wine is about as far as I stretch. Which can’t put its real value at much more than a couple of quid… oh well, down the hatch, happy new year!
Just for clarity, according to the actual receipt floating around on twitter, it looks like…
* 10 “PDR Menu Two” (so surely 10 people at the meal)
* 2 G&Ts (not bottles of gin) at £11.50 each
* 3 bottles of Alberina at £51 each
* 2 bottles of Coudoulet at £65 each
Here’s a twitter link…
https://twitter.com/bear1976av/status/1477962163155259392
…..so it appears that what seemed most objectionable, was in fact a piece of carelesss inaccuracy by the Guardian?
The story came from the Sunday Times, which clearly was the result of leak from a pissed off civil servant.
That is a nice link to the actual data. 10 people. They swapped the amount of red and white, which is sloppy but not dramatic. The main problem is the eagerness to please the crowds by whipping up moral outrage. It is reasonable to be somewhat more critical and less tolerant towards bad guys but it quickly becomes stupid, and with quickly I mean everyone does it. Craig Murray uses a very underrated technique to substitute the bad guy by a good guy to measure the reputation factor and remarks that suddenly there is nothing to be upset about.
And then there is the Tory MP, Daniel Kawczynski, whose native language is Polish, claiming £22k of Govt money for Polish lessons https://twitter.com/MarinaPurkiss/status/1477899095863971840/photo/
I don’t think his native language is Polish, only his surname by virtue of his father’s family
John I apologise you’re absolutely correct. He is polish and has polish parents please ignore my last comment – engaging brain before messaging next time 😉
He was born in Warsaw apparently. Not sure how long he lived there, but I assume he had some grasp of Polish, which would suggest a few brushing up lessons might be in order, or a set of CDs, up to £1000 maybe, but over £20K is ridiculous.
Privatny Polski rosmufki.
I was born in Rosario, Argentina – birthplace also of Che Guevara and Lionel Messi – and was briefly bilingual in English and Castillano (Argentine Spanish). Today I would need lessons to speak fluently or even read most serious material.
He has made very public claims that he speaks Polish, so why does he need lessons?
He probably fancies the Polish teacher. That is the usual reason why people take language lessons.
You would be surprised with the number of mistakes Poles make in Polish, so polishing language from grammar mistakes, incorrect anglicisms, distinguishing between polite and rude, correcting prononciation etc. can be hard work.
Yes but Kawczynski trousered 22,000 quid
GIven the limited gain of meeting American delegations, perhaps they should be provided with the food for elephants that they seem to like (salad plus water), while people from this side of the pond could be spared the punishment diet but told BYOB. This would save most of the food bill.
On the subject of wine, surely a good Merlot for red meat plus some German Quaitatswein mit predikat, or Nederberg Stein would be more cost-effective. 🙂
Well I was hoping that CM would turn a critical eye on the latest FS LFT (the F is for F******!).
I guess we shall have to wait before we hear all about her and the Arbuthnots and her Britain unhinged f***buddies maybe when she is elevated to the grand throne.
As for the Yankee’s – I am suggesting they should return to their roost before being chastened there and getting itchy nukey revengey fingers.
Pizza Express in Woking comes highly recommended. I understand.
Yes, and the staff are so discreet, they will deny all knowledge of you ever dining there.
The first sensible comment on this dinner that I have seen.
If anything, we should spend a lot more on entertaining the US trade delegation, but as you say it probably won’t do any good.
If it won’t do any good, what’s the point of spending more on them?
Quite apart from that, the UK for the last 25 years at least has behaved like Washington’s tame poodle. The master is supposed to feed the dog – not the other way round.
As far as I’m concerned, a small reduction in exports to the US would be a small price to pay for not supporting its endless war crimes, not enforcing US law within the UK, not extraditing innocent people to the hellish American penal system, etc.
Time we moved away from this total BS.
If politicians want to entertain, let them pay for it out of their own pockets and if foreign delegations expect to be entertained let them pay their share out of their own budgets. It’s not like any of these C**ts are poor or on the breadline like a significant proportion of the UK population.
Will these trade delegations result in any benefits for the population or even the country ? NO. If the USA are involved it’s a case of selling off our assets, pure and simple.
Mr. Murray may not agree but this is just a continuation of the remnants/dregs of the British Empire trying to impress by waving its flaccid willy about.
This country could be so much better if we shook off this outdated BS.
Apparently there were ten bodies at the meal, at 5 Hertford street private members club, owned by Robin Birley a millionaire and half-brother to Environment minister Lord Goldsmith.
Birley had previously donated £20K to Johnson’s PM campaign, as well as donating to the Tory party and the UKIP party.
Truss refused to consider any other venue according to media reports, John Alty ofthe Department for International Trade eventually said he was content with the situation.
The cost I think was reasonable, though a neutral venue should’ve been chosen.
Off topic, but… just saw this. Sir Tony Bliar? Eeeeek!
https://www.change.org/p/the-prime-minister-tony-blair-to-have-his-knight-companion-of-the-most-noble-order-of-the-garter-rescinded
Where have you been? 🙂
You’ll find a petition on Change.org . https://www.change.org/p/the-prime-minister-tony-blair-to-have-his-knight-companion-of-the-most-noble-order-of-the-garter-rescinded?recruited_by_id=1b059310-6b3d-11ec-b8e4-4753d5e49cc0
Just coming up to 430,000 signatures as I type. Tell your friends.
O/T.
Oops, a fly in the ointment.
“TONY Blair looks set to keep his knighthood despite a massive public outcry – as no-one in the UK seems to know how to take it off him.”
And.
“If it had accrued even one-quarter of that number of signatures on the UK Parliament’s website, the Government would respond and consider it for a debate in the Commons.”
“A stumbling block may have appeared through that channel though, as the Government site’s rules make clear that although “petitions which reach 100,000 signatures are almost always debated”, they “must be about something that the Government or the House of Commons is directly responsible for”.”
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenational.scot%2Fnews%2F19821369.tony-blair-set-keep-knighthood-despite-petition—no-one-knows-remove%2F
Just found out another reason why the petition will come to nothing: the Honours Forfeiture Committee can only look into honours decided by the government. As the Order of the Garter is bestowed as a personal gift by the Queen, they cannot recommend its removal.
But the PM can tell the Queen what Blair has done, and the hideous trail of death and destruction he has left behind.
Which PM did you have in mind? I don’t see Boris doing it. Nor Tony’s fellow knights Sir Keir or Sir Ed in other parties. Nor do I see Jeremy Corbyn making a come-back.
Maybe a hypothetical future leftie is what you had in mind?
But I think he deserves his knighthood, for the Good Friday Agreement.
Not to mention removing most hereditary peers, increasing devolution to Scotland and Wales, increasing the independence of the Bank of England, introducing the National Minimum Wages Act, the Human Rights Act, the Freedom of Information Act, allowng civil partnerships between same-sex couples, successful interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo.
You could cite his mistakes, such as expanding the EU to Eastern Europe prematurely, invading Iraq without sufficiently good grounds, not managing the aftermath sufficiently well having done so.
OTOH he got himself elected three times, which few have managed.
He deserves jail, as Desmond Tutu and all other decent people have pointed out.
Yes, in Spandau.
The point about Desmond Tutu is important as well as troubling. The following article has further details plus Blair’s reply:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/02/tony-blair-iraq-war-desmond-tutu
Largely self promotion on the back of other peoples’ efforts, as the record increasingly shows. Mandelson and Mowlem – and even Powell, deserve the credit for the NI agreement. Blair was careful to stand on the sidelines in case it all went tits-up. You think removing the hereditary peers was such a good idea, now that they have been replaced and heavily added to by political placemen and party donors? I don’t think there’s been any improvement at all in the quality of the Lords’ work, and Blair did his best to neuter that. Devolution has led to no marked improvement in anyone’s conditions. The National Minimum Wage failed from Day 1 to keep pace with the actual cost of living, and was a strong incentive for European gangmasters to sidestep the law and take full advantege of the unrestricted immigration Blair (with Major) also favoured. Sierra Leone was a put-up job and Kosovo wasn’t even in our sphere of interest; give Bill a hand, and burnish that decisive leader reputation…he couldn’t just let it go with Iraq 2.
The expansion of the EU wasn’t his decision alone. His rabid advocacy of its centralised and asphyxiating bureaucracy ever since is, however, unforgiveable.
He really improved the lot of the Palestinians too. They regarded him as an Israeli-lite. They’re still losing ground to the settlers.
Yes, he got himself elected three times, with steadily diminishing majorities. In the process, he abandoned any pretence of Socialism, split Labour from top to bottom – the pieces are still falling – and ran for it when it became apparent that the laissez-faire economics he and his corporate backers favoured was about to melt down. Two years early, leaving Sedgefield with a by-election.
For that little lot alone, he deserves the full support of the Tories. Thought you were a socialist?
Some of his after-Parliamentary exploits are detailed in these very pages. How many are in any way concerned with the good of the UK?
If we have to give creeps a gong simply for having been PM – note, it’s nothing to do with achievement, just being there – then led HM the Anachronism institute an Order of the Waffle for retired politicos, and make sure they don’t stray anywhere else.
Happy New Year.
He wasn’t elected, FPTP guarantees minority rule, same as Mussolini’s Acerbo Law.
“he cleaned public toilets too, without payment. I believe he used his middle names when carrying out such charitable work – didn’t want to be recognised for this work.”
I find that impressive, if the story be true.
But there’s another reason for not objecting to his particular knighthood: it is one of the small number for which the Queen personally selects recipients.
That £150 must be the case price. A single bottle of the 2018 Albaro costs £15 from one London retailer. £20 would have got them a half-decent Gewürztraminer, which would have tasted of a bit more than the bottle it comes in…
Could not agree more with Komodo’s choice of words, his counter arguments against this widespread media exoneration for a liar and alleged murderer of thousands.
His choice of wines are also appreciated, although Liz Truss is seemingly showing her ignorance of local Norfolk wines, her county afterall, where blind tasted wines won the international awards with flying colours.
I can see the grapevines of Winbirri’s wineyard from our house.
Do peruse for something nice. (No, I do not get any perks from this.)
https://www.winbirri.com/
The more interesting aspect of the story is the fact that it sounds like it was leaded by disaffected civil servants, who advised against it, on both cost grounds and the Tory connections of the owner – they are heavily quoted in the piece. And they offered a perfectly good alternative at one third of the initial £3k price.
But Truss insisted on this wholly unsuitable private club for celebs, royalty and assorted millionaires – a place that screams decadence and louche Gatsby-style indulgence.
Which tells you a lot about Truss and her narcissistic ego – she has held fundraising events there before and clearly sees it as an enhancement of her prestige to hang out in such places, burnishing her leadership ambitions with the halo of the idle rich who she hopes to tap for money and influence.
I very much doubt the Americans were impressed with this flagrant display of luxury dining.
Civil servants, btw, are bound by a statutory code for expenses and have to justify everything from the price of their ball point pens to a tube fare. Ministers are bound by a voluntary code, Surprise, surprise. No wonder civil servants are pissed off with these frauds and charlatans who expect them to cover up the waste and excess they indulge in at the taxpayers’ expense.
Twenty quid for a bottle of Cotes du Rhone?!? You’ve been robbed mate. ;O)
Some vintages of Coudolet de Beaucatel can be worth much more
https://www.vintagewinegifts.co.uk/acatalog/2009-Coudoulet-de-Beaucastel-2009-Perrin–26096.html#SID=160
and with the restaurant markup or even an older vintage, could be more.
My favourite Whisky is this – Sold out Now though.
Evoke the stunning image of Scotland’s Monarch of the Glen with this incredible hand-crafted stag whisky decanter on an oak wooden stand. The stag is one of Scotland’s most iconic animals, thanks to Sir Edwin Landseer’s famous painting of a Scottish red stag surrounded by our breath-taking Highland mountains.
https://stylishwhisky.com/products/stag
Brian, I hope you’re a good supporter of the Staggies too! Bliadhna Mhath Ur! ? Slainté
The article now reads “two measures of dry gin”.
Not the best researched piece Mr. Murray has ever done. The Twitter link from Chichi Latté just shows a £130 a head meal, including tip.
Outrageous to most people’s eyes, but I’m guessing the entertained feel a bit cheapskated.
Maybe Lady Dorrian was on to something pointing out the difference between high and low caste journalism…_
It was a lunch, I think, not a dinner – where indeed you would expect them not to drink much. Boozy lunches used to be common, but are not much thought of now, at least in my circles.
Anyway, the wine strikes me as pretty nasty. Even I’m willing to pay £20 a bottle, as proposed here, and I have no special taste. I’d have expected better of them.
You’re a damned sight richer than me, in that case. £20 for a bottle of spirits is pushing it as far as I’m concerned.
I’m not willing to put bad wine down my throat, though 20 quid would be exceptional – more like 10 is usual. Cheap wine is not worth risking your health for.
Pleased as I am with our host’s return, I fear I am one of those who strongly disagrees with him here.
Perhaps generous displays of opulence have always been the thing. So has corruption, favouritism, back-handers and nepotism. We’re supposed to be dealing with public servants, collecting a tax-funded salary, working at the tax-payer’s expense – not Kings and Queens who rule by divine right and without question.
Why should these well paid public servants treat themselves and one another to a far higher standard than those they purport to represent? Why should the public continually fund grand meals and ceremonies, where the individuals concerned are glorified as if they were a superior species, simply for undertaking their day-to-day duties?
The fact that this is utterly typical, actually – sorry – way below the standard that can be expected at even minor affairs, and generally unheard of by the public, is truly disgraceful. Craig might think this is all fine and dandy, but I would hazard that a bottle of wine costing upwards of three figures is not something the vast majority of people are ever likely to sample. Yet these people take such luxuries at our expense entirely for granted! No wonder these privileged troughers are so widely despised.
Demonstrating the value of trade relationships by means of ostentatious hospitality is a long established convention. It’s easier to get powerful people on side if you serve their every need. Put on a show, hire a ceilidh band, sacrifice a goat, offer your eldest daughter in marriage … whatever it takes.
What’s a typical Valentine’s Day like for you? Do you offer your other half a bunch of daffodils, a home-made card, and a slap-up meal at the nearest McDonalds (having walked there to save on the fuel)? Frugality begets frigidity.
Time honoured traditions, long established conventions etc. … sure, and haven’t they served us well? Well actually no they haven’t, not given the massive inequality and social problems, from infrastructure needs to health and services, that we see in such corrupt countries as the UK and USA.
No doubt the lavish furnishings and entertainment the political ruling classes bestow on themselves, at our expense, has nothing to do with their detachment from the rest of society in your view.
Your point about my St Valentine’s entertainment is completely and utterly irrelevant. I don’t expect the taxpayer to fund it. Perhaps you reveal something about yourself given your ignorance on this rather obvious point?
Maybe I am too bought into the system, Glenn, but I view the apparatus of international diplomacy as important to mitigating international rogue statery, even though it cannot always hold. This is simply how it operates. The only nation I am aware of that eschews the kind of normal diplomatic entertaining is Iran. Everyone else follows the accepted rules of the game. It’s nothing to do with imperialism as someone else posited – poorer countries tend to be particularly extravagant, perhaps to show they too are states and should be treated as such.
I would not for example actually support having Ambassadors living in modest flats and going round on public transport. The gladhanding of the powerful is an important tool of the job.
“The only nation I am aware of that eschews the kind of normal diplomatic entertaining is Iran.”
Good for Iran! Who would have thought that the ayatollahs would get it right sometimes? It’s like the former PM of Rhodesia driving around in an ordinary car instead of a Rolls Royce or an armoured vehicle surrounded by people armed to the teeth.
As an American saying goes, even a blind hog has to find an acorn sometimes. 🙂
Thank you for replying, Craig, and I hope you didn’t take it as a personal pop at you.
Appreciated, this is how it operates. I maintain that it should not, and should be seen (as it is by the majority of the population, I feel safe in saying) as a corrupt misuse of public money, which isolates the high political classes from the people, stokes resentment and cynicism, and leads to corruption. Particularly in poorer countries. Why should a people’s representative literally live like a King, when they purport to be a democracy?
I have worked for a couple of large corporations which were emphatic on the point of corruption. If I offered or took a bribe, it would be a serious problem for both myself and the company. Very clear standards were set out on this. A Prime Minister might not be allowed to accept and keep gifts beyond a small amount, yet ordinary civil servants take lavish bungs in the form of hospitality as a matter of course.
I’ll tell you a personal anecdote – I was sent by a fairly small Silicon Valley startup to Europe back in the 2000s to source equipment worth well into 7 figures, in the UK and on the continent. During this sourcing, I was offered straight-up bribes of cash, drugs, and entertainment from prostitutes to exceptionally splendid jollies. These were not sources I could trust at all. Why was I being cozied up to in this way, if the deal was that good? It was clear I was effectively being bribed with my company’s own money. I would accept no more than a curry and a couple of beers by way of entertainment. That’s probably why I was chosen for the job. I did miss out on a great deal of fun, of course.
If it takes many thousands of pounds of taxpayer money to do some mutual back-scratching with some civil servant’s counterparts to facilitate an agreement, during which they can live a lifestyle of the super-rich, how can we possibly feel the deal is being done solely on its merits?
Please delete or disregard my message of January 4, 2022 at 11:38. I don’t think it meets the standard of a reply appropriate to a comment from Craig.
Nice way to miss the point, glenn nl. Inequality, social problems, infrastructure, yada yada …. all very broad sociopolitical issues. I was talking specifically about established rituals for relationship building.
You’re absolutely right that your personal St Valentine’s affairs are irrelevant and uninteresting. The rhetorical question was designed to make you think about cases where you have to be generous with hospitality to build or preserve relationships. However the point would the miss the mark entirely if you actually are a cheap date, so I accept it was maybe a misfire.
To keep the bills down, we could offer our valued counterparts a cost efficient meal that meets all nutritional needs, like a smoothie with some vitamin supplements and protein pills. Flowers don’t serve any useful purpose so we can dispense with them entirely (after all, what do florists do to alleviate social inequality?). Any jewellry gifts should only be cheap Ratners imitation crap as it looks pretty much the same. We could slash the FCDO entertainment budget at a stroke.
But we’d soon get dumped in favour of more generous hosts. Rituals aren’t pointless: they demonstrate meaningful investment in a future or ongoing relationship, and that’s why ambassadors do what ambassadors do.
It would be good if you could make your point without a bunch of childish ad hominems, if you feel you have any point worth making.
Professionals really shouldn’t need to get all kissy-face with each other before working out what’s in the best interests of the people they are paid to represent.
If you’re so awed by swanky hospitality, then you really shouldn’t be doing the job. That applies to both sides.
Perhaps you don’t understand quite why the political classes are generally hated to the extent that they are worldwide, along with the view that all politicians and their stooges are “all the same” and just “in it for themselves”.
Now do try to act a bit more grown up if you actually want a discussion. Of course, if you’re just trying to distract in your apologia for the troughers, no explanation is necessary.
I posed a rhetorical question, not a targetted ad hominem. This isn’t about you. Try to leave the personal injury claims aside.
To make the grown-up point: “Rituals aren’t pointless: they demonstrate meaningful investment in a future or ongoing relationship, and that’s why ambassadors do what ambassadors do.”
It’s also why lovers do what lovers do. Sure, you can opt out of customary niceties to save money, but you won’t seal the deal or land the contract. That’s the purpose of corporate hospitality. Why did Mr Murray host the lavish receptions he recounts in his books? Was it for personal satisfaction at living the high life, or was it to make a positive impression on his guests? Answer that, and then generalize.
T: “This isn’t about you.“
Of course it isn’t. That’s why I asked that you stop peppering your comments with silly little insults and snide insinuations.
Mr. Murray hosted lavish receptions because this is what is expected. He was doing his job very well. My point is that the job should not require such treatment, no more than CEO salaries should _always_ be lottery-winner sums on an annual basis, simply because that’s what they all do.
I do take your point that we want others to feel special if we’re to have good relationships. But this should not mean throwing vast amount of other people’s money at them. Personally, I like to think my wife did not take up with me solely based on gifts etc. that I might have bestowed on her back in the day. There is more one can do than just spend money to show appreciation for another’s attention and time.
Consider that the latest Pope – Francis – is a modest man. He drives himself around in a small car, and undertakes menial duties, and has greatly cut back on the ostentatiousness of his accommodation. Do you think he is considered with a lesser regard for this behaviour than that of his predecessor, the Nazi Pope?
About the CEOs – do you feel it is right that the head of an organisation should have swanky accommodation provided, a 7-figure salary, chauffeur driven luxury cars, and so on and so forth – even if that organisation is a charity like Oxfam, or (say) Amnesty International? That sort of thing does not sit well with the very ordinary people who such organisations rely on for their existence, people who’s work does not get rewarded in such an extravagant fashion.
Likewise, people wonder who really is being represented by civil servants, when the latter has a lifestyle vastly in excess of anything they have experienced. Knowing that all this is going on continually – at their expense – further alienates the people from their supposed representatives. Being told, “Why, this is simply how things are done!” comes across as patronising in the extreme, and can only further the distance between the people and those who act and appear as their Lords and Masters.
If you feel that is a price worth paying, fair enough. We have a difference of opinion.
Following Craig’s update I won’t bother reading the piece.
Instead I would like to make a plea for the new year.
Can Craig’s and Julian Assange’s lawyers please engage on this site taking in any new ideas or line of thinking. Lets face it both legal teams have been horribly unsuccessful so what is there to lose. Both cases should have been pushovers for the defence. I cannot believe the legal system can be so deficient as to allow these miscarriages of justice. There has to be an equitable solution.
Peter Mo – the legal teams in both cases were very good, The problem is trial-without-a-jury. the judiciary is utterly arrogant and corrupt – they dumped jury trials because they have the arrogance to think that if a jury verdict differs from the direction of the judge, then the jury is wrong. A jury is also inconvenient if there is a political necessity to convict an innocent person.
I don’t actually see this lasting very long – they’re over-stepping their hand and, unfortunately, I see a violent response on the cards. A pitchfork solution would be justified.
There is zero chance of that. Even non-violent protest will be outlawed by the new police, crime, sentencing and courts bill. We are reaching the full realisation of Conservative-NuLabour Britain.
Let’s call a spade a spade, the UK has become a fascist/nazi regime.
OK then lets tackle the problem head on. A good starting point is the Alex Salmond trial. What would have happened if a judge had ruled on the verdict?
So the plan should be to get together all the proponents for the correct adjudication process for the perceived crime.
Force it on the politicians. Doing nothing then nothing will happen.
A five year old child should be able to figure that a trial with jail as an option for a breach of court rulings should not be resolved by someone immersed in the court system. Thats as basic as it comes.
So where are the voices?
Peter Mo – I think it is completely clear how Lady Dorrian would have judged if the Alex Salmond trial had been without a jury. We can infer this from the evidence that she did not permit Alex Salmond to lead. The whole point here is that if there really had been so many women complaining who were *independent* of each other, the weight of evidence that Alex Salmond was some sort of pest would have been overwhelming. Lady Dorrian refused to allow the Whats-App messages emanating from Murrell and Sturgeon’s office. This was actually a very crucial piece of information, which indicated that this was a fit-up co-ordinated at the highest level and it was a concerted effort.
One point (of course) was that most of the women were proven to be liars. But I think that where it all went horribly wrong for them was that the Scottish government paid an awful lot of money to coach the complainants, so they all sounded like clones, who knew each other very well, who all spoke the same language and they ended up sounding like people who had worked very hard with each other to cook up a story. The information that Lady Dorrian refused to allow the defence to give to the court was therefore clear and plain in other ways.
As far as I am concerned, the part that Lady Dorrian refused is much more important than Alex Salmond. While A.S. is clearly innocent of the charges brought against him, he is only one individual, while Lady Dorrian suppressed evidence which showed that there is a huge machinery working evil right at the heart of the Scottish government, which will stop at nothing to destroy people who get in the way of its sordid political agenda. That is actually much more important than the issues brought before the court.
I agree with you one hundred percent. Unfortunately, I’m very pessimistic. All the information about corruption at the heart of government was fully available and anybody ignorant of the information was deliberately closing their eyes and ears. Yet Sturgeon was re-elected. People don’t seem to be remotely bothered about the courts being corrupt or the Scottish government being corrupt or about the Crown Office being in the pocket of the government. Nobody seems to care about it.
The most egregious display of bias from Dorrian was the handling of the male witness in the disputed dinner party. The witness (given anonymity for no apparent reason) gave a pre-recorded statement via Skype due to Covid isolation. The statement left the impression that a fourth guest “may” have been present.
This is an outrageous corruption of justice. Either the defence should have been able to cross examine the witness (in which case the identification of the “fourth” guest would have conclusively excluded the complainant) or no statement from the anonymous celebrity actor should have been submitted.
Are we to believe Polis Scotland were unable to engineer a live Skype feed to facilitate cross examination?
Vivian O’Blivion – yes – another very clear case of bias on the part of the judge, showing that she would have banged A.S. up given half a chance and that she considered the jury to be an inconvenience. But the point you raise is still confined to establishing guilt or innocence of the one man Alex Salmond (who was clearly innocent). I think that the worst part of it was that she protected the Scottish government and did everything she could to hide the underhand and corrupt way that Nicola Sturgeon and her government deals with its political opponents. This is much bigger than A.S..
The moral of the story is not believe cheap , counterfeit label journalism from the Guardian. US diplomats would be glad to have anywhere in Europe just to rest their weary, jet-lagged persons in safety in a continent in which they are busy fomenting war against Russia.
Maybe Lord Frost’s real gripe with Boris, was BoJo ‘s willingness to poodle US insanity in zukraine like Blar.in Iraq. When a US president starts talking about never nuking anything ever, its probably time to clean out the ww2 air raid shelter in the garden.
When Craig says that a US food imports agreement is politically impossible, I ask myself in that case what are all these 20 meter high boxes mushrooming around the country’s motorway network for. They must be for something.
Tory policy is ‘ move fast & break everything ‘.
But rhey haven’t had a chance to break anything yet because of covid. Nothing is politically impossible for Thatcher spawn Tories, even starting a European war.
It says a lot about the British Press that both The Guardian and the Sunday times are “incorrect”, as you so politely phrased it.
Once upon a time this would have been . Now it is the norm.
I have to admit that, these days, if I have any interest in any story I see in the UK press I require corroboration from a more trustworthy source before I put any credence in it.
You better keep your Ms. Truss away from booze, especially when she visits overseas. Sometimes extravagant ideas may hit her head and she may start playing Iron Lady in a tank, sending threats to Putin. It would be sad if a drunk woman became the cause of the war.
The laughable fraud that’s Truss. “Do you know that 70% of all the bullshit I sprout is imported from the Torygraph? THAT IS A DISGRACE!”
haha
since the booze is declared in the topic, I wondered what then could be served in Estonia.
Google says there is a brewery there called Wormsi. Well, that might be a possible explanation for the unexpected effects that Estonian booze had on Miss Truss.
I’m rather surprised at James Obrien of LBC fame, defending Tony Blair getting ennobled, Obrien, adds that he thinks Tony’s not that bad a guy, as he saved Kosovo and Sierra Leone in years gone by.
Jobbie’s never been the best judge of character. Case in point: his endless promotion of convicted paedo fantasist fraudster Carl Beech – which he’s still yet to apologise to his listeners for.
James O’Brien and LBC are about as honest and admirable as Tony Blair.
Signing the petition against Blair’s knighthood implies that the petitioner places value in the whole elitist, classist, deep state edifice of the honours system.
I for one welcome Blair’s toxic inclusion. One more nail in the coffin.
The Republic of Ireland manages fine without a honours system (by constitutional decree). An independent, Republic of Scotland would be advised to follow suit.
I quite agree Vivian the honours list is in reality a facet that is used to legitimise royalty, in Scotland I also fear it creates gatekeepers against independence in Scotland.
Yes, but the petition is an embarrassment to the powers that be. Anyone that hears about it is reminded of bad things. It’s “bad optics”. That’s why I support it.
It’s LBC.
They have an agenda. That includes lures such as O’Brien paid as much as the others to attract liberal ears to then be brainwashed.
There must be a panic on about the public uproar if James has been instructed to tell his listeners directly to not denigrate the nakedness on display by King Bliar.
I believe United Health and other giant healthcare corps have been pushing their man Biden for a trade deal with the UK and British ministers have been very eager to accommodate them. Of course not the kind of news the Guardian, Sunday Times or Aunty consider to be of interest to the public.
Agreed, say goodbye to what’s left of the NHS, say hello to preconditions, health insurance and billions in profits.
And say hello to GM crops and foods (which we can wash down with a glass of fluoridated water)!
So, …
“National Security and Investment Act becomes law, a bill to strengthen the government’s ability to investigate and intervene in mergers, acquisitions and other deals that could threaten UK national. Today (Thursday 29 April 2021).”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-security-bolstered-as-bill-to-protect-against-malicious-investment-granted-royal-assent
Perfect opportunity for the Government with this bill to protect the NHS, Utilities, Transport – all the things most people would consider part of our ‘real’ security. Does it though ? No. The foreign asset strippers still have Carte Blanche.
Unfortunate for this initiative that Ireland has blocked a US-UK trade deal. There will be no free trade deal, so US health giants will have more trouble to take over the NHS.
Frankly, Johnson’s rabble have lost the public’s confidence. It won’t come back. I don’t see much more in Johnson initiatives, however long he manages to hang on to power.
In other news, in under 1 week, > 650,000 people have signed the petition calling for Tony Blair’s knighthood to be rescinded.
I did express hopes that 5 million would sign it when it was at about 200,000, so it’s rate of increase does suggest that that is not totally out of the question.
Where can I find the petition…I’d like to sign it too.
On the train.. Here is the Petition.. Looks to be on its way to 700.000 –
https://www.change.org/p/the-prime-minister-tony-blair-to-have-his-knight-companion-of-the-most-noble-order-of-the-garter-rescinded?
“I leave it up with this update and explanation, if only as a reminder of my own fallibility… “
I’m sure you will be readily and understandingly forgiven by all here Craig.
In the meantime you may like to take a look at the BBC’s bizarre, though not entirely surprising, Ghislaine Maxwell/Prince Andrew coverage.
The phrase ‘Give ’em enough rope’ springs to mind – heads should roll, though should any do so it will probably only be those of the ‘little people’.
See here: The BBC’s TWISTED Response To Ghislaine Maxwell Verdict – Novara Media (4 Jan 2022) – YouTube, 14m 59s
Very cool that Craig left the article up. This honesty and transparency is an example of why I support him.