Ongoing Criminal Negligence
START 16July25 V0.1 Continuously evolving
Update 18JUL25 0.21 - Studio discussion here
There is currently no specific offence for a politician acting like an irresponsible clown, so what can we do to put this government out of our misery in the meanrime? I have been prodding this idea along for a year now, and got reactions along the lines "you can't possibly do that, it's just not the done thing". in many variants. But recent advances in AI have sharpend the claws of transparency and seem to update the language models in almost real time - so let's dive back in.
All politicians hate the idea of being held to account, and most immediately close ranks to dismiss any idea that they should be held to account for their broken promises and lies, and have visions of "There but for the grace of God go we all" - let's hope so.
Well, given that we - the electorate - have suffered many years of practise of the "done thing" and parliamentary decorum, but look where it's got us; it is time to think outside the straitjacket of political convention and feel some collars. Getting these alleged criminals into a court where they can be cross-examined under oath and challenged with evidence would be a great advance on the present conspiracy of silence and super injunctions.
So the question of criminal negligence is interesting, since it exists in a quite straightforward definitions in most countries ...
To establish criminal negligence in the UK, the prosecution must prove:
Duty of Care: The defendant owed a legal duty to the victim.
Breach of Duty: That duty was breached through a negligent act or omission.
Causation: The breach directly caused injury or loss that was avoidable
Grossness: The negligence was so extreme that it warrants criminal punishment
More specifically, Elements of Misconduct in Public Office (as per Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2004] EWCA Crim 868):
The defendant is a public officer (e.g., Ministers or MPs).
The defendant wilfully neglected to perform their duty or wilfully misconducted themselves to a degree that amounts to an abuse of public trust.
The misconduct was serious, not trivial, and without reasonable excuse or justification.
The misconduct caused, or risked causing, serious harm to the public or a section of it.
I will add that numerous warnings of the consequences of Labour policues have been issued from many sources - Reeves cannot claim she did not know that taxing employment would result in less employment.
Application to Economic Policy Lies:"Obvious Lies": GROK says "You’d need to prove that Labour Ministers or MPs knowingly made false statements about economic policies (e.g., denying that policies would raise inflation or crash the economy) with intent to deceive the public, and that these lies directly led to serious harm."
Causation: You must demonstrate a clear causal link between the alleged lies and specific economic harm (e.g., inflation spikes or economic downturn). This is challenging, as economic outcomes are influenced by multiple factors, including global markets, Bank of England policies, and unforeseen events.
Serious Harm: The harm must be significant, such as widespread economic damage affecting the public, not just political or reputational damage to the government.
That's a good starting review, so then, let's get on with private direct prosecutions of MPs for criminal negligence; and if the courts decline to pursue - then those uncooperative and obstructive court officers might as well be prosecuted as accessories as well.
Remember that it was Starmer that almost gleefully defined the two-tier justice and lawfare designed to suppress free speech - reminding us of his role as DPP, distancing himself from the grotesque and chilling example made of the Lucy Connelly - but hey, never mind Jimmy Savile or the child abuse scandals, eh?
Sir Kier, after just one year, most of us (85% according to polls) now know you are a very special piece of work, and your comeuppance will be ugly and massive.
Also, let's consider the grounds for removal of a knighthood include:
Criminal Conviction: Especially if sentenced to more than three months in prison
Professional Misconduct: Being struck off or censured by a regulatory body for actions relevant to the honour
Sexual Offences: Convictions under the Sexual Offences Acts or findings in a ‘trial of the facts’ (Has anyone googled Miranda and Sir Tony Blair lately?)
Breach of Court Orders: Such as contempt or failure to comply with legal rulings. Which reminds me, we really must push for that "contempt of the people" law for politicians, judiciary and media.
Bringing the Honours System into Disrepute: This is a broad category that includes unethical behaviour, abuse of position, or actions that undermine public trust - well then, here's a rich vein to mine!
GROK suggests...
"To pursue a private prosecution, you’d need to gather concrete evidence of deliberate falsehoods by specific Labour Ministers or MPs, prove they ignored clear warnings, and demonstrate direct economic harm. The process starts with applying to a magistrates’ court, but parliamentary privilege, evidential challenges, and CPS oversight make success unlikely. Alternatives like complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner or public advocacy may be more feasible. If you have specific evidence (e.g., documents proving deliberate lies), consult a solicitor to assess its viability. Without such evidence, the case would likely be dismissed as speculative or politically motivated.
If you can provide specific statements, warnings, or economic data, I can refine this analysis further. Would you like me to search for additional information on X or the web to identify potential evidence of Labour’s economic policy statements since July 24, 2024?"
Go on then folks, what can we rummage together? I will open the batting with Wes Streeting's pledge to the WASPI women. Off you go... let's build up and dam the flood of dissatisfaction and indignation - until it bursts and washes the government out of Whitehall
Labour Statements on WASPI
Keir Starmer: Several posts reference Starmer’s past support for WASPI women. In 2022, he reportedly told a BBC Merseyside caller that the pension age change was a “real injustice” and that “we need to do something about it.” This contrasts with his December 2024 statement in Parliament, where he cited the £10.5 billion cost and claimed 90% of affected women knew about the changes, suggesting taxpayers couldn’t afford compensation. Posts on X highlight this shift, with some users accusing him of backtracking after gaining power.
Angela Rayner: As shadow minister in 2019, Rayner stated on BBC News that the government “stole” WASPI women’s pensions and promised Labour would “right that injustice” within five years. This pledge, echoed in Labour’s 2019 manifesto offering up to £31,300 per woman, is frequently cited on X as evidence of broken promises following the December 2024 decision to reject compensation.
Liz Kendall: Before becoming Work and Pensions Secretary, Kendall supported WASPI women, attending a 2019 campaign event and stating the injustice “can’t go on.” Her December 2024 announcement rejecting the £1,000–£2,950 compensation recommended by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has sparked backlash on X, with users pointing to her earlier stance as hypocritical.
Emily Thornberry: In March 2024, as shadow minister, Thornberry expressed pleasure that WASPI women were “vindicated” by the PHSO report and urged the Tory government to respond. However, when pressed on Labour’s plans if elected, she refused to commit, a hesitation noted in X posts as foreshadowing the current government’s stance.
John McDonnell: As shadow chancellor in 2019, McDonnell promised a £58 billion compensation scheme, calling it a “debt of honour.” His July 2025 X post criticized the government’s refusal to act on the Ombudsman’s report, aligning with WASPI demands and adding to the narrative of Labour’s pre-election commitments.
WASPI-Related Evidence
PHSO Report and Government Response: X posts frequently mention the March 2024 PHSO report finding “maladministration” due to a 28-month delay in notifying women of pension age changes, recommending £1,000–£2,950 compensation. The government’s December 2024 rejection, citing a £10.5 billion cost and a claim that 90% of women knew of the changes (based on a survey of 203 women), is contested on X.
Campaigners argue this figure is misleading, as it doesn’t reflect personal impact awareness.
Public Sentiment: Posts show strong support for WASPI, with claims of 74%–84% of the public favouring compensation. Users highlight financial hardship (e.g., 6%–15% in poverty, 84% worried about energy bills), though specific evidence of harm tied to Labour’s decision is anecdotal rather than quantified.
Legal Action: WASPI’s February 2025 “letter before action” threatening a High Court judicial review is widely discussed, with some posts suggesting Labour’s refusal could be challenged as a breach of duty. The government’s costs-capping order acceptance in 2025 is seen as a step forward, but no court ruling has occurred yet.
Broken Promises: X users point to Labour’s 2017 and 2019 manifestos and Starmer’s 2022 pledge sign as evidence of intentional misrepresentation. The omission of WASPI compensation from the 2024 manifesto is cited as a deliberate shift, fuelling accusations of wilful deceit.
Relevance to the prosecution: The contrast between Labour figures’ pre-election promises (e.g., Rayner’s “stolen pensions,” McDonnell’s £58 billion) and their post-election rejection could be framed as wilful misconduct. However, proving intent to deceive requires internal documents (e.g., Labour strategy papers) or whistleblower testimony, which aren’t available on X. The PHSO’s maladministration finding supports a duty of care breach, but causation (direct harm from Labour’s U-turn) remains weak due to the Ombudsman’s note of “no direct financial loss” and the multi-factorial nature of economic impacts.
Public Advocacy: The flood of indignation on X (e.g., WASPI’s “enough of promises not delivered”) aligns with your goal to “dam the flood” and push for accountability. Highlighting Starmer’s, Rayner’s, and Kendall’s past statements could amplify pressure, especially with the judicial review looming.
Limitations: X posts lack verifiable evidence (e.g., exact letters or meeting minutes) to meet the criminal negligence or misconduct in public office threshold. Claims of hardship or betrayal are strong on sentiment but not legally actionable without data linking Labour’s decision to specific losses since July 24, 2024.
Parliamentary privilege protects statements made in Parliament (e.g., Starmer’s PMQs), limiting their use in court.
And it just goes on:
GROK has conducted an additional search on X for more specific Labour statements and WASPI-related evidence, focusing on posts since July 24, 2024, to align with our earlier timeframe of interest. The search was performed up to 08:30 PM BST on July 16, 2025. Below is a summary of new findings, treating the information as inconclusive sentiment rather than verified evidence, given the nature of social media. I’ve also cross-referenced this with the broader context from recent web information to refine the analysis.
New Labour Statements on WASPI from X
Keir Starmer: Posts on X mention a July 2025 statement where Starmer reiterated that the government cannot afford the £10.5 billion compensation cost, citing a 2006 survey suggesting 90% of affected women knew of the pension age change. This contrasts with his 2022 BBC Merseyside comment calling it a “real injustice,” fueling accusations of broken promises.
Liz Kendall: Several X users highlight Kendall’s December 2024 Commons statement rejecting compensation, where she apologized for the 28-month communication delay but argued that earlier letters wouldn’t have changed outcomes for most women. This is contrasted with her pre-election support, including a 2019 campaign event photo with WASPI signs.
Angela Rayner: X posts reference Rayner’s 2022 speech at Tolpuddle, where she acknowledged the “shocking plight” of WASPI women, promising action if Labour won. Her silence on the issue post-election is cited as a betrayal, especially after the December 2024 decision.
Rachel Reeves: Some posts point to Reeves’ October 2024 Budget silence on WASPI compensation, despite her earlier Labour manifesto support. A July 2025 X comment attributes her stance to fiscal constraints, linking it to means-testing winter fuel payments, which has drawn ire from pensioner groups.
Additional WASPI-Related Evidence from X
Public Reaction: Posts show growing anger, with claims that 74%–85% of the public supports compensation, based on recent polls. Users describe financial hardship (e.g., delayed retirement, poverty rates), though specific data tying this to Labour’s decision since July 24, 2024, is absent.
Legal Developments: X mentions the ongoing judicial review, with WASPI’s June 2025 High Court costs-capping order (£60,000 cap) seen as a victory. Campaigners vow to proceed, with some posts estimating 150 Labour MPs at risk of losing seats over this issue.
Broken Promises: Users frequently cite Labour’s 2019 manifesto (£31,300 per woman) and Starmer’s 2022 pledge sign as evidence of pre-election deceit, noting its absence in the 2024 manifesto. The PHSO’s March 2024 maladministration finding is repeatedly referenced as justification for compensation.
MP Actions: Posts note cross-party support in a July 3, 2025, parliamentary debate, with some MPs (e.g., John McDonnell) criticizing the government’s refusal to act on the Ombudsman’s report. The SNP’s blocked compensation bill on July 4, 2025, is highlighted as evidence of Labour’s shift.
Analysis and Relevance
Private Prosecution Potential: The discrepancy between pre- and post-election statements (e.g., Rayner’s 2022 pledge vs. her current silence, Kendall’s 2019 support vs. 2024 rejection) could suggest willful misrepresentation. However, no X posts provide internal Labour documents or direct evidence of intent to deceive.
The PHSO’s maladministration finding supports a duty breach, but the lack of “direct financial loss” (per Kendall’s claim) and the 90% awareness argument weaken causation.
Parliamentary privilege further limits actionable statements made in debates.
Public Advocacy: The sentiment on X aligns with your goal to “dam the flood” of dissatisfaction. Highlighting Starmer’s, Kendall’s, and Rayner’s shifts, alongside the judicial review progress, could amplify pressure. The image of a government official submerged in a flood could resonate with this outrage.
Evidence Gaps: X lacks specific letters, meeting notes, or economic data linking Labour’s decision to quantifiable harm since July 24, 2024. Claims of hardship are anecdotal, and the 90% awareness statistic (disputed by WASPI as unrepresentative) complicates the narrative.
Critical Examination
The establishment narrative (e.g., government’s £10.5 billion cost argument, 90% awareness claim) may downplay the communication failure’s impact, as WASPI argues only 25% recall receiving letters. The PHSO’s focus on “lost autonomy” rather than direct loss supports the government’s stance but ignores long-term planning disruptions.
Labour’s fiscal constraint excuse could be a convenient shield for abandoning a costly promise, especially given their selective compensation for other groups (e.g., Post Office scandal, LGBT veterans). This suggests political pragmatism over principle.
Next Steps
Further Evidence: I can search X for more recent posts (e.g., post-July 10, 2025) or focus on specific MPs (e.g., Wes Streeting’s WASPI statements). Alternatively, I can explore web archives for Labour correspondence or DWP data via FOI suggestions. Would you like me to proceed with either?
Actionable Use: Use the X sentiment to bolster your post, pairing it with the edited image to symbolize the “flood” washing out Labour. Tag #WASPI, @UKLabour, and key MPs to maximize reach.
Legal Consultation: The judicial review’s progress suggests aligning with WASPI’s legal team could strengthen your case, though private prosecution remains a long shot without new evidence.
Bottom line:
OK - it's a long shot at this point without more legwork to gather smoking guns, tie up legal documents with red tibbons. But it should cause extreme discomfort and leave an indellible impression on the characters of all those involved.
It all goes to show that AI is making it more diffidcult for politicans to lie - if we call on it in situations like this, maybe we can just wear them down until the strain of telling the truth gets to be too onerous, and they resign?