tommers
Currently in investor / advisor mode.
What a fucking surprise.
What a fucking surprise.
So she should be able to tell us what para 15 is
Changing the title of a document that has already been leaked to make it sound better is so fucking amateur.
Blaenavon.I can’t wait till they get the strategic reserve of 50 steam locomotives out from that tunnel under the Mallen hills* and start running them on welsh steam coal from the ‘museum’ at Big Pit in Blienaven .
* they’ll have to move the crashed spaceship out of the way first obvs.
the gorillas and lions might be hatching similar plans for you
As is the quality of the published document - it's wonky as fuck. Looks like somebody printed out a Word document, and then badly scanned each page individually to PDF
Yes, my mother in law is from there, and my father in law from Mountain Ash. They don’t do irony either...Blaenavon.
Good try.
p.s. I remember them wanting to give me a VIP tour (of that very museum) but I was like sorry no time, now to business. I kind of regret it.
Printing out and re-scanning a digital document is actually common SOP to make sure redactions really are unreadable. I've seen hilarious attempts at redactions where someone's merely drawn a black box over the text, not realising you could simply (re)move the box with the right software, and of course the text still being visible if you inspect the file contents.

So no change?There'll be a housing crisis, the NHS and public services in general will under severe pressure and we'll see massive regional disparities and widespread precarity.
I was just pleased your mangled version had a V instead of an F tbh.Yes, my mother in law is from there, and my father in law from Mountain Ash. They don’t do irony either...
Section 15?How many of the stockpiled body bags will be needed?
They've got an ironworks, haven't they?Yes, my mother in law is from there, and my father in law from Mountain Ash. They don’t do irony either...
This was in the Times leak, word for word I think. What's the bleedin' point of redacting something that's already been published?Rosamund Urwin
@RosamundUrwin
·
44m
"15. Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2000). Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions directly supplied by the refineries."
The effects of brexit are already malign. The pound's gone down the shitter; more employers are shutting down and leaving every day; the tax take is down £600 million a week; the extreme right feel emboldened by the vote with a consequent rise in hate crime; politics is broken and society seems coarsened at every level
Given all the foregoing, there are still many cheerleaders for brexit who see a messy crash-out as the unicorn-rich uplands of sovereignty and liberation. So, however dismal things get in Yellowhammer Land, there will still be a constituency that embraces it and fails to acknowledge its wretched effects.
The Times leak was the 'base case'. By this publication it had turned into a 'reasonable worst case'. Govt used the court order to apply some spin.This was in the Times leak, word for word I think. What's the bleedin' point of redacting something that's already been published?