More Tory lies

[Sraman]

17 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

Given that you are not able to answer the simple question as to what data needs to be input in order to calculate the SD for tax purposes you just prove my point that some are not versed in it.  You in particular.

 

But bang on professor.

 

looks like my Maths PhD was a waste of time.

 

 

Go on then. Enlighten me.

[Unknown user]

3 hours ago, jambo lodge said:

 

You really are so predictable. Its in the EU's interest to get a free trade deal with the UK as much as it is for us..........in fact a certain party used that argument in a recent national referendum.   

No it isn't. It's in their best interest, but it's far more vital to the UKs economy than the EU's

[deesidejambo]

Just now, Sraman said:

 

Go on then. Enlighten me.

Already did but will try again as you asked.

 

In order to calculate the SD which is required to calculate where the tax bands fall, you need the statistical distribution of all the populations earnings for the year, sometimes called the Bell Curve or distribution curve, whatever.      That is only obtained by the population itself submitting tax returns specifying their PAYE earnings and payments along with any other earnings such as self-employment, letting income, dividends and all  other income.   Once you have the full distribution then it is straightforward to calculate SD and then calculate where the tax bands would fall.      Then after that you would have to collect the tax afterwards as opposed to the current system where the tax is calculated at the same time you submit your tax return.    As well as tax being then requested retrospectively, it will tend to confuse people who are not familiar with statistical methods, in my words are not "versed" in it, but use whatever word doesn't offend you.

 

On your comment that I must have also failed O-Grade English apologies for any grammatical errors.

 

[Sraman]

1 minute ago, deesidejambo said:

Already did but will try again as you asked.

 

In order to calculate the SD which is required to calculate where the tax bands fall, you need the statistical distribution of all the populations earnings for the year, sometimes called the Bell Curve or distribution curve, whatever.      That is only obtained by the population itself submitting tax returns specifying their PAYE earnings and payments along with any other earnings such as self-employment, letting income, dividends and all  other income.   Once you have the full distribution then it is straightforward to calculate SD and then calculate where the tax bands would fall.      Then after that you would have to collect the tax afterwards as opposed to the current system where the tax is calculated at the same time you submit your tax return.    As well as tax being then requested retrospectively, it will tend to confuse people who are not familiar with statistical methods, in my words are not "versed" in it, but use whatever word doesn't offend you.

 

On your comment that I must have also failed O-Grade English apologies for any grammatical errors.

 

 

I'm not really interested in grammar more a lack of understanding. 

 

The above describes starting from scratch with everything an unknown and no tax system in place whatsoever but we aren't starting from scratch. All the data to create the bell curve is already there, hence my previous reference to HMRC as the data holders. We could create bell curves for the last 50 years or so if needed. As a mathematician you wouldn't tackle a problem by wiping all previous knowledge and start at 1+1 would you?

[jambo lodge]

53 minutes ago, Smithee said:

No it isn't. It's in their best interest, but it's far more vital to the UKs economy than the EU's

 

Don't think so. In the full year to September 2016 the UK imported £302b worth of goods and services from the EU, £242b went the other way. A bad deal will hurt the EU more than the UK. 

[deesidejambo]

36 minutes ago, Sraman said:

 

I'm not really interested in grammar more a lack of understanding. 

 

The above describes starting from scratch with everything an unknown and no tax system in place whatsoever but we aren't starting from scratch. All the data to create the bell curve is already there, hence my previous reference to HMRC as the data holders. We could create bell curves for the last 50 years or so if needed. As a mathematician you wouldn't tackle a problem by wiping all previous knowledge and start at 1+1 would you?

 

So understanding of statistical analysis is a matter for O-Grade English?    

 

Anyway using data from the previous year could be done but with the proviso that the curve moves every year due to changes in income so the bands for the year in question would be calculated at points that are not relevant to the year in question.   It could be done with an adjustement for inflation on the historic curve if required.     But if, as you suggest, you use the aggregated for 50 years you end up with a curve that makes no statistical sense as it is an aggregate of different individual urves.  Mathematically that can be done but would make no sense to do.

 

Anyway, I don't understand and can't explain.

 

I did get O-Grade French though.

[Cade]

So we'd be paying extra tariffs on 302billion of goods but the EU will only be paying extra tariffs on 242, split between 27 nations?

 

[SwindonJambo]

4 minutes ago, Cade said:

So we'd be paying extra tariffs on 302billion of goods but the EU will only be paying extra tariffs on 242, split between 27 nations?

 

 

The potential tariffs added to that € 302bn might make it cost effective for us to buy some of these goods and services from elsewhere instead so a good deal is very much in the EU’s interests to strike a deal too as they won’t want to lose the business.

 

i voted remain, but if we leave and do ok I am in no doubt that others will follow us out the door. I have met many continental Europeans with little love for the EU, some even from founder member countries. It started out as a trading block 60 years ago but has evolved into a supranational government type organisation, setting laws for member states. That’s what’s pissed people off and swung the vote. Had it remained a mere trading block, no vote would have taken place. It was a mere trading block when we had our previous vote in 1975 and the result wasn’t even close.

[jambo lodge]

11 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

The potential tariffs added to that € 302bn might make it cost effective for us to buy some of these goods and services from elsewhere instead so a good deal is very much in the EU’s interests to strike a deal too as they won’t want to lose the business.

 

i voted remain, but if we leave and do ok I am in no doubt that others will follow us out the door. I have met many continental Europeans with little love for the EU, some even from founder member countries. It started out as a trading block 60 years ago but has evolved into a supranational government type organisation, setting laws for member states. That’s what’s pissed people off and swung the vote. Had it remained a mere trading block, no vote would have taken place. It was a mere trading block when we had our previous vote in 1975 and the result wasn’t even close.

 

Completely agree with you.

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, jambo lodge said:

 

Don't think so. In the full year to September 2016 the UK imported £302b worth of goods and services from the EU, £242b went the other way. A bad deal will hurt the EU more than the UK. 

It's nothing like that simple of course, the EU'S economy is much much bigger than the UKs, so the percentage of trade lost would be much smaller and easier to absorb. 

 

After the uk leaves, the eu will have a population of 250 million and trade deals across the globe. Meanwhile, the uk, with 60 million people, will lose free access to its biggest, closest and easiest to access trading partner.

 

It's simple maths, the EU doesn't need access to the uk in the same way the uk needs access to the eu, especially as the eu isn't an island nation, the eu doesn't have a divorce bill to pay, etc etc.

 

Claims that the EU need the uk more are openly laughed at where I live by the way, it's such an absurd claim

[Cade]

30 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

The potential tariffs added to that € 302bn might make it cost effective for us to buy some of these goods and services from elsewhere instead so a good deal is very much in the EU’s interests to strike a deal too as they won’t want to lose the business.

 

i voted remain, but if we leave and do ok I am in no doubt that others will follow us out the door. I have met many continental Europeans with little love for the EU, some even from founder member countries. It started out as a trading block 60 years ago but has evolved into a supranational government type organisation, setting laws for member states. That’s what’s pissed people off and swung the vote. Had it remained a mere trading block, no vote would have taken place. It was a mere trading block when we had our previous vote in 1975 and the result wasn’t even close.

ahh yes the old "we'll simply stop trading with our biggest market and trade with India and Canada instead" line

[Sraman]

35 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

So understanding of statistical analysis is a matter for O-Grade English?    

 

Anyway using data from the previous year could be done but with the proviso that the curve moves every year due to changes in income so the bands for the year in question would be calculated at points that are not relevant to the year in question.   It could be done with an adjustement for inflation on the historic curve if required.     But if, as you suggest, you use the aggregated for 50 years you end up with a curve that makes no statistical sense as it is an aggregate of different individual urves.  Mathematically that can be done but would make no sense to do.

 

Anyway, I don't understand and can't explain.

 

I did get O-Grade French though.

 

I didn't suggest using the datasets from previous years in that way. They are used as benchmarks to compare and look for patterns to assist with future predictions. 

 

I gave up French in 2nd year so I won't try to translate.

[SwindonJambo]

3 minutes ago, Cade said:

ahh yes the old "we'll simply stop trading with our biggest market and trade with India and Canada instead" line

 

I did not say anything of the sort. I said that the addition of tariffs might make it cost effective to buy SOME good and services from elsewhere. I still expect the EU to continue to be our biggest trading partner, with or without tariffs, if thar clarifies.

 

I did say I voted remain, despite my criticisms of the EU.

[jambo lodge]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

So we'd be paying extra tariffs on 302billion of goods but the EU will only be paying extra tariffs on 242, split between 27 nations?

 

 

Far too simplistic. In 2016 Germany exported £26b more in goods and services to the UK than we did to Germany.........what is the most important and dominates the EU? 

[SwindonJambo]

4 minutes ago, jambo lodge said:

 

Far too simplistic. In 2016 Germany exported £26b more in goods and services to the UK than we did to Germany.........what is the most important and dominates the EU? 

 

We import 900,000 cars a year from Germany and our business is very important to them. The Car Manufacturers are a powerful lobbying group in Germany and will badger the Bundestag into getting a decent deal for the auto industry at least.

 

For better or worse, A deal of some sort will be thrashed out in the end. It may be complicated and on an industry by industry basis. Now that a divorce bill appears to have been agreed, we’ll move onto other matters. It will certainly complicate our relationship with the EU, but we had a vote, the result went the way it did and we just have to get on with it and know where we stand. The result displeased me, but I accept it and we move on.

[John Findlay]

A deal will be announced and it will say the divorce bill is X amount. In reality no money will exchange between the UK and EU. It is politics afterall.

[SE16 3LN]

21 hours ago, Boris said:

 

100 billion?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42161346

 

This report says 50 bn Euros.

 

But if we as a nation have made committments, then we are duty bound to honour them.  

 

As I've said before, there are valid reasons for leaving the EU.  Our government aren't using those though.  If you think this is going to benefit the working class as you put it, then I think you are wrong.  You think you can sort Westminster?  Good luck with that!

50 is the initial payment Boris, as you well know. 

 

I think it will **** the workers in this country beyond belief, you seem to think it will benefit them in some way, tell me how. There is no commitment for this money, its a bribe for access to markets, that's all.  I would rather see it spent on hospitals, schools and the development of the UK's position in global markets. I was a remainer, but that was before I saw what a bunch of ***** we really have in Brussels. 

[Boris]

Just now, SE16 3LN said:

50 is the initial payment Boris, as you well know. 

 

I think it will **** the workers in this country beyond belief, you seem to think it will benefit them in some way, tell me how. There is no commitment for this money, its a bribe for access to markets, that's all.  I would rather see it spent on hospitals, schools and the development of the UK's position in global markets. I was a remainer, but that was before I saw what a bunch of ***** we really have in Brussels. 

 

Keeping access to the single market would benefit the UK economy, would it not?

 

As I understand it, the money, this "divorce bill", is due to our committments, rather than a bribe as you put it.  If we don't honour our committments, why should the EU suddenly want to discuss free access to the single market?

 

We are leaving this "club" but want all the benefits of membership, without paying the subs!

[jack D and coke]

19 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Keeping access to the single market would benefit the UK economy, would it not?

 

As I understand it, the money, this "divorce bill", is due to our committments, rather than a bribe as you put it.  If we don't honour our committments, why should the EU suddenly want to discuss free access to the single market?

 

We are leaving this "club" but want all the benefits of membership, without paying the subs!

I don’t think we do want all the benefits without paying. I honestly think we should’ve told them to do one. Let’s be honest it’s in nobody’s interests to not thrash a deal out and imo all the EU have done is show themselves up to be a pretty petty and unsavoury institution and making it look a nightmare for anybody else thinking about leaving. Because May is so weak a leader and a remainer at heart Britain has come away with a spectacularly bad deal. 

The world is changing and obviously Europe is a big market but we would’ve still been trading with them albeit under WTO rules.

The UK is a big economy and if not in the EU they’d be absolutely falling over themselves trying to thrash out a deal. We’ve made a right apple runt of it imo. 

 

[Cade]

The "bill" is simply the UK upholding it's BINDING obligations which it agreed to as part of the EU.

If we had refused to pay this money, what kind of trade deal do you think we would have been offered?

[Unknown user]

40 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Keeping access to the single market would benefit the UK economy, would it not?

 

As I understand it, the money, this "divorce bill", is due to our committments, rather than a bribe as you put it.  If we don't honour our committments, why should the EU suddenly want to discuss free access to the single market?

 

We are leaving this "club" but want all the benefits of membership, without paying the subs!

Good post, the uk isn't being fined or punished, it's just having to live up to it's responsibilities. 

We're handing in our makro card and moaning that we still have to pay our outstanding invoices.

[Boris]

3 minutes ago, Cade said:

The "bill" is simply the UK upholding it's BINDING obligations which it agreed to as part of the EU.

If we had refused to pay this money, what kind of trade deal do you think we would have been offered?

 

Welching on our promises amounts to spivvery.

[jack D and coke]

1 minute ago, Cade said:

The "bill" is simply the UK upholding it's BINDING obligations which it agreed to as part of the EU.

If we had refused to pay this money, what kind of trade deal do you think we would have been offered?

We’d have traded under WTO rules like anybody else surely?

[Boris]

20 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

We’d have traded under WTO rules like anybody else surely?

 

Which are pretty shan in comparison.

 

Equally, membership of teh single market would give you access to other trade deals, so no need to negotiate seperately.  As I understand it at least.

 

As an aside, titally get the scepticism of the EU, but I'd rather we were showing leadership and taking Europe along with our ideas, rather than simply sulking in the corner all the time.  We could have taken the Dutch, the Scandinavians, maybe even Belgium with us for a new vision of the EU.

[doctor jambo]

25 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Which are pretty shan in comparison.

 

Equally, membership of teh single market would give you access to other trade deals, so no need to negotiate seperately.  As I understand it at least.

 

As an aside, titally get the scepticism of the EU, but I'd rather we were showing leadership and taking Europe along with our ideas, rather than simply sulking in the corner all the time.  We could have taken the Dutch, the Scandinavians, maybe even Belgium with us for a new vision of the EU.

You would not be able to take them anywhere

The EU is ruled by the germans, backed by the French

Any attempts by the smaller nations to change things have been crushed- ( thinking Ireland and Holland with their referenda)

Greece- - their notional sovereignty was utterly ignored

[Boris]

Just now, doctor jambo said:

You would not be able to take them anywhere

The EU is ruled by the germans, backed by the French

Any attempts by the smaller nations to change things have been crushed- ( thinking Ireland and Holland with their referenda)

Greece- - their notional sovereignty was utterly ignored

 

Britian if it put its mind to it, could easily counterbalance the Franco-German arrangement.  IMO.

[deesidejambo]

23 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Britian if it put its mind to it, could easily counterbalance the Franco-German arrangement.  IMO.

 

The difference imo is whether you see the EU as a trade arrangement or a "Federal Superstate".

 

If its the latter it will fail due to failure to recognise cultural and social norm differences.

 

The Roman Empire collapsed

The British Empire collapsed

The Soviet Union collapsed

The EU will collapse.

 

If its the former them maybe Britain could have had more clout, but I see it as the latter - the EU will ultimately fail.  Vive la difference!

[jack D and coke]

28 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

You would not be able to take them anywhere

The EU is ruled by the germans, backed by the French

Any attempts by the smaller nations to change things have been crushed- ( thinking Ireland and Holland with their referenda)

Greece- - their notional sovereignty was utterly ignored

Exactly. 

It’s basically a totalitarian protectionist cartel. 

We should’ve told them to do one. 

[Boris]

Just now, deesidejambo said:

 

The difference imo is whether you see the EU as a trade arrangement or a "Federal Superstate".

 

If its the latter it will fail due to failure to recognise cultural and social norm differences.

 

The Roman Empire collapsed

The British Empire collapsed

The Soviet Union collapsed

The EU will collapse.

 

If its the former them maybe Britain could have had more clout, but I see it as the latter - the EU will ultimately fail.  Vive la difference!

 

But the UK could have, should have (?), pressed the trade side more.  Instead it kept quite, sniping from the sidelines.

 

I don't disagree with your point regards empires falling, although the USSR was perhaps more down to economic pressure.

[doctor jambo]

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

But the UK could have, should have (?), pressed the trade side more.  Instead it kept quite, sniping from the sidelines.

 

I don't disagree with your point regards empires falling, although the USSR was perhaps more down to economic pressure.

Economic pressure is just as valid- and it will, IMHO, be the most likely thing to rupture the EU ( though I suspect that will be difficult as there will be a point at which the countries who may attempt to break out will be so indebted to the new German superstate as to be impossible)

Why should Spanish/ Italian/ Greek youth be forced into poverty to sustain the German export machine?

[Boris]

21 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Economic pressure is just as valid- and it will, IMHO, be the most likely thing to rupture the EU ( though I suspect that will be difficult as there will be a point at which the countries who may attempt to break out will be so indebted to the new German superstate as to be impossible)

Why should Spanish/ Italian/ Greek youth be forced into poverty to sustain the German export machine?

 

I don't disagree.

 

Hence why the EU needs to step back from harmonisation, for want of a phrase, and simply be the single market.

[SE16 3LN]

3 hours ago, Boris said:

 

Keeping access to the single market would benefit the UK economy, would it not?

 

As I understand it, the money, this "divorce bill", is due to our committments, rather than a bribe as you put it.  If we don't honour our committments, why should the EU suddenly want to discuss free access to the single market?

 

We are leaving this "club" but want all the benefits of membership, without paying the subs!

Nothing I've read says that, otherwise it wouldn't be the movable feast it is. This money supposedly includes paying into EU bureaucrats pensions for 10 years when UK pensioners struggle on a maximum of £160 per week. Anyone justifying that has a low moral threshold.

[SE16 3LN]

3 hours ago, Boris said:

 

Welching on our promises amounts to spivvery.

Once again, show me the promises.

[Boris]

32 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

Nothing I've read says that, otherwise it wouldn't be the movable feast it is. This money supposedly includes paying into EU bureaucrats pensions for 10 years when UK pensioners struggle on a maximum of £160 per week. Anyone justifying that has a low moral threshold.

 

So the UK wouldn't have anyone in receipt of an EU pension?

 

There is enough nonsense in this country, led by Westminster to query the £160 pw.  You can't equate a shite pension with being in the EU.  Westminster can sort the pension out whenever they want to, or benefits or the NHS.  They just don't want to and are happy to find a scapegoat in the EU.

 

[Boris]

36 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

Once again, show me the promises.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-divorce-bill-how-much-is-it-and-what-is-it-for

 

What is included?

First are the British contributions to the EU budget for 2019 and 2020, payments worth €22bn, which were agreed by David Cameron when he negotiated the EU seven-year funding programme in 2013. But the largest single item is the UK’s share of the EU’s unpaid bills, worth a theoretical €39bn and known by the French accounting term as reste à liquider. These are projects the EU has agreed to fund, but not paid for, reflecting the lag, for example, in deciding to build a road and paying the construction bill. Then there are pensions for EU officials, with a total maximum liability to the UK estimated at €10bn. And finally a long list of other items: loan guarantees to Greece and Ukraine, money promised to Syrian refugees in Turkey, schemes aimed at stopping migration from Africa.

[jambo lodge]

2 hours ago, Boris said:

 

I don't disagree.

 

Hence why the EU needs to step back from harmonisation, for want of a phrase, and simply be the single market.

 

Don't disagree, but when 40% of the entire EU budget was / is spent on the Common Agricultural Policy nothing would/will change unless the French Government grasp the nettle of the huge numbers of small farms who live entirely on support payments.

[SE16 3LN]

59 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-divorce-bill-how-much-is-it-and-what-is-it-for

 

What is included?

First are the British contributions to the EU budget for 2019 and 2020, payments worth €22bn, which were agreed by David Cameron when he negotiated the EU seven-year funding programme in 2013. But the largest single item is the UK’s share of the EU’s unpaid bills, worth a theoretical €39bn and known by the French accounting term as reste à liquider. These are projects the EU has agreed to fund, but not paid for, reflecting the lag, for example, in deciding to build a road and paying the construction bill. Then there are pensions for EU officials, with a total maximum liability to the UK estimated at €10bn. And finally a long list of other items: loan guarantees to Greece and Ukraine, money promised to Syrian refugees in Turkey, schemes aimed at stopping migration from Africa.

The 22 billion isn't even part of the negotiation and only includes one years payment after Brexit, less than 4 billion. So it's the UK'S share of 39 billion to spend on theoretical things , EU fat cats pensions and funding of theoretical loan defaults by countries such as Ireland. That will cost us 50-100 billion and you think that's a good deal. I'll leave it at that.

[Boris]

50 minutes ago, jambo lodge said:

 

Don't disagree, but when 40% of the entire EU budget was / is spent on the Common Agricultural Policy nothing would/will change unless the French Government grasp the nettle of the huge numbers of small farms who live entirely on support payments.

 

Well, I'm afraid I don't really know about the ins and outs of the CAP, but it will be interesting to see how the UK farming sector fairs post Brexit.

[Space Mackerel]

Looks like Mr Damien Green is in a bit more soapy bubble today.

 

Whit are they like trying to dispute facts with a upstanding retired police officer. 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Looks like Mr Damien Green is in a bit more soapy bubble today.

 

Whit are they like trying to dispute facts with a upstanding retired police officer. 

If Green isn't sacked then the Tories are moral psychopaths.     

[Space Mackerel]

15 minutes ago, Victorian said:

If Green isn't sacked then the Tories are moral psychopaths.     

 

I thought they were already that. Seems like the electorate have forgotten all the sleaze and corruption that dogged them through the 90’s

[Victorian]

18 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

I thought they were already that. Seems like the electorate have forgotten all the sleaze and corruption that dogged them through the 90’s

Hadn't realised he's made another flat denial.     He should be deselected and removed as an MP when he's nailed.    Not for the porn but for the lies.    If May makes an attempt to get him past this then she has to go too.     

[Cade]

David Davis threatens to resign if Green is forced out

 

[Space Mackerel]

8 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Hadn't realised he's made another flat denial.     He should be deselected and removed as an MP when he's nailed.    Not for the porn but for the lies.    If May makes an attempt to get him past this then she has to go too.     

 

The whole Tory Party at Westminster is in free fall. It’s actually glorious viewing. 

That Mogg utter  arsehole on Sky News the now defending him saying that it all should be ignored because the police officers have not disclosed this info in the right and proper way. 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

The whole Tory Party at Westminster is in free fall. It’s actually glorious viewing. 

That Mogg utter  arsehole on Sky News the now defending him saying that it all should be ignored because the police officers have not disclosed this info in the right and proper way. 

Sounds like a Tory way to excuse away the inexcusable.    Utter slime.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

35 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

I thought they were already that. Seems like the electorate have forgotten all the sleaze and corruption that dogged them through the 90’s

 

It seems that the electorate forget the old saying every now and then, that under the Tories 'The rich get richer and the poor get poorer'.

 

You asked 'Whit are they like' can I hazard a guess and say "Politicians".

Show me a politician and more often than not, Lies, Sex, Sleaze, Corruption & Bribery are often not far behind.

 

[Cade]

Moggy in meeting with Bannon.

Far right take-over of the western world almost complete.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/jacob-rees-mogg-held-meeting-with-steve-bannon-in-london

[Victorian]

JRM is a ****ing lunatic.     How could anyone vote for that welt?

[deesidejambo]

Boot him.   Before the weekend is out.     No mercy.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

On 01/12/2017 at 18:30, Space Mackerel said:

 

The whole Tory Party at Westminster is in free fall. It’s actually glorious viewing. 

That Mogg utter  arsehole on Sky News the now defending him saying that it all should be ignored because the police officers have not disclosed this info in the right and proper way. 

 

Heard the other day, that the material which was released to the media was supposed to have been destroyed, don't know if a court order was issued or not to do so, however either way, the very fact this retired policeman had the material is I think a criminal office and then to release it to the media is only asking for trouble.

 

The two retired Policemen are now under investigation seemingly, presumably of how they had kept material which had been ordered to be destroyed.

They could end up going to jail for this.