When you mix cookie warnings with civil servants:

Don’t get me wrong. The UK’s Companies House website is a clean, fast, and well-organised website. However, it suffers from a particularly bad example of cookie officiousness.

Say you want to research a company, and you head along to their website.

Click once in your Google results to open their page:

Click twice to “Accept additional cookies“; then:

Click three times to “Hide this message“:

Then click for a fourth time to start doing what you originally came to the site to do:

Then, click for a fifth time to “Accept analytics cookies“:

Then, click for a sixth time, to “Hide this message“:

I’m used to it, by now. But still.

Cults (i)

I also think it’s crucial that people are in the office for part of the time otherwise we lose that camaraderie, the bonding that you get from a team of people working on something.”

Taken from this <article>.

As a lawyer in private practice, I worked on multi-party, multi-jurisdictional deals, as part of extended teams of accountants, tax advisers, lawyers, engineers, banks, financiers, technical specialists of all kinds, etc.  Some of those were our clients’ people, many were not.  Many of them were overseas.  In one deal from a few years ago, half of them I never even met in person, apart from on the ‘phone (this was pre-covid, 2014-2015, before video calls were widespread).  From start to finish, the deal took over 18 months. 

Essentially, I was part of a tightly-knit team for nearly 2 years, all working our asses off, all driven by a common financial purpose. 

Many of us had never met each other, neither face-to-face, nor, as noted, even on Zoom / Teams.  Some of the personalities involved were difficult, and reliably obnoxious.  (You generally don’t end up running a major investment bank if you’re a sweet-natured soul lol.)  Rest assured, no friendships were formed.  “Bonding”, lol. We respected each other, and we called it how we saw it.  Nothing more.  There was no small talk, no camaraderie, no spontaneous shafts of sunlit creativity as we pranced hand-in-hand around the water cooler, singing our team song, surrounded by rainbow clouds of happy-clappy harmony …

The deal went well, and won the deal of the year at the local annual legal awards.

And yet this lad can say, with a straight face, that it’s “crucial that people are in the office for part of the time otherwise we lose that camaraderie, the bonding that you get from a team of people working on something”.

Tosh.  Managerialism at its worst.  Trendy, vacuous, management psycho-babble. 

Frankly, if even a syllable of that was true, all corporate law firms would go to the wall, and the kind of adult team-working I have just described would be an impossibility – despite such team work being commonplace between corporate law firms and clients for decades. 

As a lawyer in private practice and in-house, I had perfectly effective working relationships with clients and overseas colleagues that I rarely – and in some cases never – met.  Ironically, working at one company, I had a far better working relationship with the team in a country 8,000 miles away (most of whom I never met) than I did with some of the jerks in our office, whom I met face-to-face daily, unfortunately.  

Can you imagine, as a lawyer or other consultant in private practice, suggesting to your head of dept that you were minded to turn down that lucrative instruction from that difficult client because you felt there wasn’t the “right cultural fit with the client” lol.  Obviously, subject to a conflict / AML check and the instructions being legal and sensible, you will work with anybody – the “cab rank” rule. Lawyers and many other consultants  frequently work closely, in effective teams, with people that they have no personal connection of any sort with.  It’s simply not necessary.  Were it otherwise, the world of business and corporate affairs would collapse overnight. 

The idea that “you produce better work if you like your colleagues / clients” is the flip side of “you produce worse work if you dislike your colleagues / clients“. In reality, I work to a standard that I set for myself. What I think, or don’t think, about you is irrelevant. I’ll do my damnedest for you if I think you’re a wonderful person. I’ll also do my damnedest for you if I can’t stand you. It makes not a jot of difference to me. I fail to see how on earth it could be otherwise. Do these group-hugger types have some sort of system where they increase the quality of their work pro rata to the extent that they have positive emotions / good camaraderie about their colleagues or clients? Frankly, such people may well be suited to a caring profession, but they have no place in business. All they’re doing is imposing self-indulgent and half-baked theories on people who are trying to do a day’s work.

Incidentally, it also follows from the foregoing that, while a decent salary is important, in my view, bonuses are a complete waste of money. They never made any difference to how I worked. Obviously, I never told any employer that (who refuses more money), but it’s the truth – I’d have done the same work, to the same standard, in the same time, without any bonus. You shouldn’t have paid me any bonus; it made no difference. Of course, if you want to give me the extra money out of simple generosity, fine; but please let’s stop pretending that giving anyone a bonus is going to make an iota of difference to how they work.

Ironically, in the deal alluded to above, while I always try to work equally hard for everyone, I probably went even more obsessive on any work product I had to do for one especially obnoxious character.  I always wanted to be so ahead of schedule, that he’d be shown up, and silenced.  Like lads in a football club tearing lumps out of each other in an in-house A v B match, the quality of my performance was a disguised act of aggression, deriving from the fact that I disliked the guy.  That is, ironically, all the bonding codology so beloved of companies nowadays, through sheer cod-psychology stupidity, would have attempted to interfere with a winning dynamic. 

We’re in business to make money together.  In pursuit of that end, we are respectful, collegiate, honourable, honest, industrious.  That’s called “being professional”, and, unless you’re some sort of socially-dysfunctional moron, you should behave like that towards everyone you encounter in a corporate / client setting, entirely regardless of the vagaries of one’s personal feelings about them.   Personal feelings are irrelevant in a professional context, and that’s how it should be. It is crassly un-professional to let such simpering faux-considerations intrude on one’s professional life.  We make lots of acquaintances, and we know how to treat each other with respect, but friendship rarely comes into it.  If I look at the hundreds, thousands, of people I have met through work over the last 30 years; and compare the amount of those with whom I had any genuine camaraderie (as opposed to the fake, spoofing, small-talk, bantering kind that I can turn on for anybody at the drop of a hat) and who became friends, it is a very small %.  Great to find, of course, and a welcome bonus on the very rare occasions that a genuine friendship derives from a business involvement, but that’s what workplace or client friendships are – a rare bonus. It’s silly to assert that group-hugs and shallow happy-clappiness necessarily presage success in business.  

No, the real drivers for this obsession with obsolete real estate are as follows:

  • Widespread political and corporate lobbying by corporate realtors, fighting for their jobs;
  • Sunk costs fallacy by managers (“we’ve signed this ten year lease on this ruinously expensive city-centre white elephant office, and by God we’re going to get value out of it, whether it’s valuable or not …”);
  • Extroversion-bias in business, whereby typically extrovert managers – who are depleted by solitude and energised by noise, distractions and chatter – assume, wrongly, that everyone else is like them;
  • Rubbish management – managers who have no idea how to measure productivity by outcomes, and panic that nobody’s working if they can’t “feel the buzz”;
  • Peacocking – in top-down, status-driven organisations, wherein markers of status are everywhere  – from preferred slots in the company car park to better offices to parading around pestering everyone in your suit that’s more expensive than theirs – it’s pretty difficult to peacock on a Teams call, where everybody has equal screen time; and, last but not least,
  • Cults – the cult-ification of corporate culture, and the infantilisation of corporate culture – and that’s a separate article really, about how, in this century, increasingly, <employers are indistinguishable from cults>.

Retract, retract:

2010: Audi’s new A8 limo has a screen.  In 2010, it was considered to be ugly and distracting.  Audi went to great lengths to engineer a retractable mechanism that enabled you to hide it (just watch until it retracts, remainder of video is irrelevant):

2025: Audi’s forthcoming A8 limo has a steering wheel.  It is considered to be unsightly and somewhat unnecessary.   Audi has gone to great lengths to engineer a retractable mechanism that will enable you to hide it:

Obsolete things

Offices:

<“… Companies now have mobile apps and e-commerce platforms for customers to order anytime, anywhere, instead of before the doors close at five o’clock at the brick-and-mortar shop of days gone by. Why can’t companies think the same way about their employees?“>

<She calls face time “a mirage, the symbolic appearance of working (going to meetings, chatting with co-workers) but not actually getting much done”.”>

Meetings:

<“The biggest study so far on meetings and productivity finds that most companies should eradicate them almost entirely.”>

Budgets:

<“Budgeting, as most corporations practice it, should be abolished.“>

But as Peter Drucker once remarked:

When a subject becomes totally obsolete, we make it a required course.

and:

There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.

Carpe currus: why now is the time to buy an idiot car

I’m not great at blipping the throttle on down-shifts. I get it right about half the time. Recently, as the revs flared to match the road speed as I engaged third on a tight corner, it struck me that, relative to modern and future generations of drivers, I’m close to an expert on such arcane matters, as nobody does that any more; and, mostly, with dull-witted turbo-diesel engines, and on-off batteries, it’s respectively largely, and wholly, impossible.

Why bother anyway, says you. Well, 3 reasons:

  1. Stability – by rev-matching, you minimise any transmission jolt when adapting to higher revs – you equalise / smooth them out. In a corner, a stable car is a safer car.
  2. Minimises wear and tear on the transmission.
  3. And, most important of all, it sounds great (especially going through Paris in the early am in the 1970s):

Another satisfying micro-skill, soon to be lost forever, sacrificed on the embourgeoisement altar. Soon, we’ll all be wafting about in our transportation pods, entirely passive, perma-monitored every second of the way by government (and big insurance company) computers.

Good <article by Jeremy Clarkson> in a recent Sunday Times:

My sentiments exactly. As I noted in a previous post:

Cars used to have a variety of personalities.

Nowadays, all cars are converging to a bourgeois mean.

And, for driving enthusiasts, it’s only getting worse. Audi cheerfully admits that, when designing its forthcoming A8 model replacement, the “drive system and the handling are no longer at the top of the design specifications in this new generation of cars. Instead, the starting point is the interior, the occupants’ living and experience sphere while traveling.”

Travelling! They don’t even bother to say “driving” any more …

Whereas, for people like me, drivetrain and handing are front and centre.

And, as the alarming success of the unashamedly Big Brother-y Alexa reveals, this lamentable state of high-tech serfdom is what lots of people want. Here’s the interior mock-ups of Audi’s 2025 A8 limo replacement. Admittedly, attractively done – it’s a radical shift away from the current digital and screen clutter. Any essential info (not that there will be much, given how limited the “driver”, sorry traveller‘s inputs will be) will be mainly HUD:

Audi is modelling the modern “driver” experience, not on driving, but on travelling, and, specifically, on first class airline travel, where the most you need to do is get the recline angle right on your seat as you settle back to do precisely nothing:

And then you realise the steering wheel is retractable, for those increasing-duration periods when you won’t even need it:

I can see the appeal. Many people find driving stressful and boring, and they’re not very good at it anyway. People will lap this up. And, being Audi, it’ll be well made and nicely-finished (none of your Tesla shonkiness here).

For enthusiasts though, it’s a loss.

Imagine a skiing holiday where skiing was banned and replaced with rides up and down the mountain in the gondolas / cable cars:

The new skiing – no effort needed – why did nobody think of this before?

That’s more or less what it will be like. Great for folks who can’t ski. And safer and more relaxing, obviously. And you still get to see the fab scenery. But overall, a bit shit for those of us who like to, er, ski … or drive …

There isn’t much time left. Now is the time to consider buying the most idiotic, the most car-ry car possible. One whose design priorities are entirely counter-cultural.

To most people, I’d tell them to get an old air-cooled 911. There’s still nothing like it. It’s easy to drive at normal speeds; it’s not easy to drive well at higher speeds. It takes a lot of time to understand how to make that “juggling sledgehammers” weight bias work for you in a corner.

This is why older 911s can catch you out – in extremis, they do the opposite of what we’re all used to. Say you’re in a regular car, and you carry too much speed into an unfamiliar bend. The car starts to understeer (i.e., run wide / plough straight on). You might fail to make the turn and go through the hedge. No problem though. Instinctively, faced with a nervy situation like that, people will lift their foot off the throttle. That’s the instinctive reaction – and it’s also the correct reaction. As soon as you do that, the nose of your car tucks back in toward the centre of the road, away from the hedge, you’re now tracing the bend accurately once more, foot back on the throttle promptly, and all is well.

Lift off like that in a 911 though, and you may screw yourself. The transition to oversteer is abrupt, due to the extra weight hanging out the back. Instead, go in slower than you think, deliberately lift off to deliberately get the tail out a little, and then get back on. Easy to talk about, but can be scary on a road, as most people (me included) will not have enough experience to know how much is “a little” bit of tail out in any given corner. I’m easily faster and more confident in a conventional car, but the fear-inducing possibilities of a 911 are addictive. The challenge never gets old. Essentially, to get the most speed out of an old 911, you “back the car in” to the corner. Nicely explained in this short 1 minute 50 seconds video:

And as motoring journalist and 911 afficionado Dickie Meaden (here on track with the little old 1973 2.7 RS 911) explains, that fear factor, that difficuty, is how we like it:

“But would you really want a car where you get everything right, every time? … if it’s easy, it’s boring.”

Alas, while I’m very much in the Meaden camp on this, we’re culturally out of step. This is not an age where the masses want to feel challenged, or made to feel uncomfortable, whether in or out of a car. Conceptual safe spaces at college, and actual safe spaces in your car. Everyone smiles, nods along. It’s the future, folks, the faux-peace of cultural tyranny. Easy, and boring, that’s what the people want; and you can’t blame Audi, or any other car manufacturer, for giving that to them.

Meanwhile, in the few car-driving years we have left, bollocks to all that. If you have the spare £€$, get yourself an old air/oil-cooled 911.

Or, if you already possess such a life-affirming accoutrement, get yourselves one of these:

Any Caterham 7:

Any Morgan 3-wheeler (the new one is just out, but the principles are the same):

Any car from the 1930s – this is a 1935 Riley MPH (only 15 ever made), but any basic 1930s sports car will do. Prices from this era range from ludicrous to a few grand, but the viscerality and the participatory nature will be common to any of them:

The triumph of hysteria

No senior Tory in England nowadays would dare to wear a jersey like the one sported by Margaret Thatcher above.

When I was a child, in the 1970s, had you told told me that, by the time I was middle-aged, we would live in a world where sane people would stand up in public, and, with a straight face, (i) announce that women have penises, and (ii) insist that leaving the world’s largest trading association is a smart move, I’d have struggled to believe you.

Who said this:

It’s your job, the job of business, to gear yourselves up to take the opportunities which a single market of nearly 320 million people will offer.

Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world’s wealthiest and most prosperous people.

Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it.

It’s not a dream. It’s not a vision. It’s not some bureaucrat’s plan. It’s for real. 

Our national failure to make the most of the opportunities when we joined the Community was part of a much more general failure.

In those days, Britain was in the forefront of those resisting change, in fighting to preserve the barriers.

Some in Britain still see it that way, but they are getting fewer and fewer. 

Above all, it means a positive attitude of mind: a decision to go all out to make a success of the single market.

The foregoing words were uttered by none other than Tory hero, Margaret Thatcher, in 1988. Link <here>.

Many Irish people, not without good reason, were not fans of Thatcher. But whatever about her attitude to Ireland, in relation to mainland Europe, and to trade, it is instructive to compare her with today’s Tories. There are two major differences:

  1. Thatcher was a hard worker. She read the briefing papers; she put in the hours. Today’s Tories are a pack of lazy bastards who never do any work.
  2. Thatcher was intelligent, and rational. Culturally, she was no Europhile, but she knew a good business opportunity when she saw it. As far as she was concerned, the single market was mere common sense.

Recently, a senior English Tory, Tobias Ellwood, dared to revive Thatcher’s ideas by floating the rational idea that, whatever about Britain leaving the actual EU, re-joining the single market would not offend against the Brexit doctrine, but would make a lot of economic sense.

He argued that exports to Europe had shrunk by £20bn, with fishers and farmers facing particular hardship, and the issue of the Brexit protocol remained unresolved. “All these challenges would disappear if we dare to advance our Brexit model by rejoining the EU single market (the Norway model),” he wrote.

Predictably, he’s been excoriated.

One expects that pigshit-mob-pitchforks response to reason nowadays, of course, but let’s not forget that, viewed even in the context of the last few decades, the abuse being heaped upon Mr. Ellwood is unusual.

Britain is, or claims to be, a mercantile country. It beggars belief that a proposal merely to have more free trade with its neighbours should trigger so much rage and spittle.

It’s a far cry from what Lord Palmerston once remarked:

Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”

That’s sound advice. It’s advice that any country, or any business person, or any person, should take to heart. The tiresome, hyperbolic perma-outrage which fuels Brexit is of course dumb bullshit, but it is also a negation of the wisdom in Lord Palmerston’s remark.

Post-Brexit (if indeed anything is ever really “post” Brexit”, British politics is still mired in a silly ideological phase, wherein raw emotions, humbug and bulging populist veins (from the usual bullshitters) take precedence over rational self-interest.

The genius of Britain’s pre-Brexit polity was that it was characterised by a kind of genteel cynicism.  Rational to a fault, the Brits used to be capable of shooting at you last week – and then offering you tea the next week, if it was in their economic interest to do so.

I respected that flexibility.  It sprang from a culture of rationality.  It always reassured me to think that, when the chips were down, the Brits always knew which side their bread was buttered on.  As a small country, it was reassuring to know that, ultimately, one’s large neighbour was level headed – that they were a country with which a deal could (in private) be done. That culture of amoral pragmatism also served as a bulwark against extremism / political faddism / tin-pottery.

How things have changed.

Brexit is an ongoing, slow-motion, balls-up.  If Britain had any sense, it’d be falling over itself to be in the single market, like Thatcher was.

Regrettably, Britain in 2022 is in the grip of a bizarre upside-down form of cultural-political mania, a polity wherein one must pretend that fiction is fact, all for the sake of an ideology called Brexit.

A former Irish ambassador to the UK, <writing in the Irish Times recently>, noted that:

In the years leading up to the referendum, one of the key arguments of Brexit advocates was that the United Kingdom had long been unable to defend its national interests effectively in Brussels. The British public was constantly told that their country was being dictated to by
EU bureaucrats or by France or by Germany, or by whoever the chosen fictional bully of the day happened to be. Several years before the referendum, a senior Conservative frontbencher was so casually critical of the UK’s negotiating effectiveness in Brussels, during a visit to the Irish Embassy, that I felt obliged to point out to him how exceptionally admired and effective his country’s European negotiators actually were.

The only national capital that had come to underestimate British influence in shaping the European Union, both in its overall direction and in its detailed policies, was London itself. How this inversion of reality came to be so widely accepted was not entirely mysterious. At its heart was the growing failure of many at political level in the UK to understand the nature of European negotiations which, as in any negotiating process, required give and take. The fact that British ministers and diplomats, in reality, so often won the argument in Brussels was insufficient to counter the false and relentless domestic narrative that compromise was a form of surrender rather than a necessary way of advancing interests. This failure of comprehension, ultimately devastating for British long-term interests, was propelled by mendacious and now well-documented journalism that created, for domestic public consumption, an infantile fictional version of European negotiations and of Britain’s role within them.

Needless to say, not everyone in the UK bought into this false narrative. Many British officials and politicians have always understood, and indeed still understand, the EU as well as anyone. Their ability as negotiators was second to none. The tragedy is that their wisdom and experience has been set aside, at least for the moment, in the shaping of British relations with the EU.

A career in politics? Being an idiot helps

Carrying no briefcase (since he never does any work), Mr. Frost grins as he hastens away from Downing Street, back to the warm embrace of the Daily Telegraph, where an ability to talk unrealistic shite all day long is viewed as a career

In the social media age of individual “truths” and consensus bubbles for the weak-minded and make-up-your-own facts to suit your mental health issues, it’s a truism to note that being an idiot who talks shite nowadays is no impediment to participating in politics.

Remember Lord Frost, failed whiskey salesman and useless Brexit spoofer who ran away from his last “job” as Brexit “negotiator”?

Good <article> on the dickhead, by Lord Adonis:

I never thought Lord Frost would last long. Sitting directly opposite him and questioning him in the House of Lords for his 10 months as Brexit minister, I was most struck by his petrified shiftiness. He never once looked me in the eye, just nervously recited Brexit platitudes which he had to read out haltingly from a big red binder because he couldn’t even remember them properly.

Now he has turned Brutus to Caesar, just like Dominic Cummings. I wouldn’t be surprised if the two of them plotted his departure together, along with that Maoist resignation letter bemoaning that the Brexit revolution is failing because it isn’t revolutionary enough.” 

Now here he is again, spoofing on in a major broadsheet, under the headline about how to <“pull Britain back from the brink“.>

The usual theme of the Brexit-y hero riding to the rescue, yet again.

Then you read the actual article.

Long on rhetoric, desperately short on anything resembling an actual idea. 

Sums up Frostie the no-man alright; his lack of anything resembling a plan which reflected reality was the primary reason why he cut and ran from his last Brexit position.

In previous times, an all-talk, no-walk, moron like this would have had no credibility whatsoever.

But in 2022, being a useless spoofing bollocks is no impediment to your continuing participation in politics or in punditry.

You were in power, mate. You had your chance. You were firing blanks. Your political loins are barren of ideas. You ran away.  You ducked out.  You fucked up. You failed.

STFU, you deluded loser. 

Russia’s rape machine

All armies do it, but the Russians took it to new depths.  In WW2, the front-line Russian troops reportedly were OK, but the drunken rabble that came in afterwards essentially were looters and rapists, on an industrial scale.

This is harrowing testimony from a Russian WW2 veteran, describing the actions of his platoon in the former E Germany – listen to the end, if you can:


Unsurprisingly, it’s also happening in Ukraine:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/25/evidence-ukraine-women-raped-before-being-killed-say-doctors-russia-war

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/04/25/help-us-find-women-ukrainian-rape-victim-taken-door-to-door/

https://inews.co.uk/news/ukrainian-woman-says-russian-troops-raped-her-1544863

Nobody should be surprised by this.  Not only has this always been a deliberate Russian war tactic, the Russian army itself is ran on brutal lines, <hazing to death of new recruits happens, and raping of subordinates occurs>.

Frankly, if your leader and his cohorts describes your neighbours (the ones with the Jewish President) as “Nazis” and “not a real country” and “a cancer”; don’t be too surprised if a bunch of illiterate, brutalised, drunken conscripts take their cues from such utterances.

In the case of Russia, it’s not just the usual wartime thuggery – it’s encouraged from the top.  As Stalin infamously remarked, one should “understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle“. 

And let’s not forget <Putin’s own chortling approval of rape> in 2006:

He turned out to be a strong man, raped 10 women,” the Russian president was quoted by Russian media as saying at a meeting in Moscow with Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert. “I never would have expected it of him. He has surprised us all, we all envy him!”

The Tories want a sock-puppet bishop

In February, the Bishop of Leeds, Nick Baines, noted that “it was unequivocally true that the Russian Orthodox Church had encouraged Putin in his campaign …[and that there was] … collusion and corruption between the Russian government and the Russian Orthodox Church.”

Patriarch Kirill, a former KGB agent, has described Putin’s reign (and I use the word advisedly) as a “miracle“.

Regrettably, the current Brexiter British government give every impression that they too would prefer to have senior clergy with all the agency of ventriloquist’s dummies:

The British government is currently finalising a deal with Rwanda, whereby immigarnts to Britain will be shipped off to Rwanda for “processing”. The Brexiter government freely admits that there are human rights abuses in Rwanda, but the relevant Minister is unperturbed by that:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has condemned the British government’s new deportation / offshore processing scheme, and he bas been roundly attacked by British government figures. Ben Bradley, the Tory MP for Mansfield, said that “commenting on government policy is not Justin Welby’s job”.

Obviously, I’m comfortable with politicians disagreeing with the Archbishop. No Western democracy should be a theocracy.

However, a balance needs to be struck.

I’m concerned by the obvious cancel culture now so evident in Tory party thinking: “commenting on government policy is not Justin Welby’s job”.

Why is it not part of the Archbishop’s job then?

This only makes sense if you consider that government policy is above ethics or morality. In a supposedly free country, the Archbishop surely can comment on whatever he likes, regardless of whose policy it is.

The idea that “government policy” should be above comment is worryingly autocratic.

Though it of course aligns very well with the Brexiter idea that no scrutiny or rules should apply to the Brexiter Executive and that they can do what they “jolly well like”, regardless of parliament, judges (aka “enemies of the people”) – or bishops.

Disagree with Welby, of course, as is your right in a democracy – but no democrat should be straying into censorship of opinions.

Within the law, Welby can say what he wants, as can the wittering Rees Mogg; and to assert otherwise is deeply troubling.