Strange questions that sometimes need answering (or not asking in the first place really).

[Matt N]

Just the new funny number, like 420 or 69. Nothing new, I just imagine its quite a fun thing for kids to spot during a maths lesson or something.

Although unlike the previous numbers, it literally means nothing.

420 is a new one on me! I know about 69 and its connotations, but I’ve never heard of anything to do with 420…

21 was the funny number when I was in school, which I think originated from some internet meme…

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

420 is a new one on me! I know about 69 and its connotations, but I’ve never heard of anything to do with 420…

21 was the funny number when I was in school, which I think originated from some internet meme…

Ah, "21". A true classic of the Vine era, if memory serves.

420, on the other hand, is a bit more... traditional. It's the long-established international code for cannabis culture, stemming from the time of day (4:20 p.m.) and migrating to the date (April 20th) for annual celebrations.

It's the high holiday for those who appreciate... herbal... enrichment, shall we say. The preferred time for indulging in a specific kind of "goose food".

 

[Matt N]

Ah, "21". A true classic of the Vine era, if memory serves.

420, on the other hand, is a bit more... traditional. It's the long-established international code for cannabis culture, stemming from the time of day (4:20 p.m.) and migrating to the date (April 20th) for annual celebrations.

It's the high holiday for those who appreciate... herbal... enrichment, shall we say. The preferred time for indulging in a specific kind of "goose food".

Your memory serves you correctly, I think, as Vine was definitely a thing when I was in early secondary school!

I had no idea the definition was so specific… you really do learn something new every day!

I’m now thankful that I already knew the connotations associated with 69, as the definition of that one would not be suitable for our new PG-friendly forum, I feel…

 

[DiogoJ42]

Ah, "21". A true classic of the Vine era, if memory serves.

420, on the other hand, is a bit more... traditional. It's the long-established international code for cannabis culture, stemming from the time of day (4:20 p.m.) and migrating to the date (April 20th) for annual celebrations.

It's the high holiday for those who appreciate... herbal... enrichment, shall we say. The preferred time for indulging in a specific kind of "goose food".

I believe "four-twenty" was a US police radio code for the herb at some point in history.

...I wasn't thinking about it, but now you bring it up, I'm now pondering whether I'll be home from work in time? Sadly I have to endure the Piccadilly line, so it'll be closer to 16:30 at best.

 

[Slugjc]

I pity the current generation.

Can they not just be happy with a yo-yo

 

[rob666]

Hey, we had skateboards and clackers.
Now I have arthritic ankles and wrists.

 

[NuttySquirrel]

...I wasn't thinking about it, but now you bring it up, I'm now pondering whether I'll be home from work in time? Sadly I have to endure the Piccadilly line, so it'll be closer to 16:30 at best.

That wouldn't deter you if you were living in Bristol. Seems any public thoroughfare is fair game here. I even caught a whiff coming through the vents in my car this morning. Sadly it didn't make today feel any less stressful!

 

[DiogoJ42]

That wouldn't deter you if you were living in Bristol. Seems any public thoroughfare is fair game here. I even caught a whiff coming through the vents in my car this morning. Sadly it didn't make today feel any less stressful!

I've seen people vaping on the Piccadilly line, but I don't think I'm going to risk doing that! Busses, on the other hand, anything goes. They are the wild west of public transport.

(I got home at 16:11 yesterday, if any one was wondering. )

 

[DiogoJ42]

Who here is familiar with Discworld?

@Kelpie is a massive fan since teenhood. I, no doubt, would have been a fan, had I discovered the books younger. She has read the complete works, I have only read Mort and Weird Sisters, but have seen all the TV / animated adaptations. So I doff to her when it comes to geekery on the matter...

BUT... the real question is: "How would you define the alignment [in D&D terms] of Patrician Vetinari?"
I consider him lawful neutral.
Hils says lawful evil.

I guess the real question is: "Is a dictatorship evil by default?" Or can "order" be "imposed" without "evil" intent? So far as I know, Ankh Morpork was far better off under his rule than it was under chaos.

Discuss!

 

[Matt N]

I have not so much a bizarre question, but more of a random one. As there are quite a few keen politicos on here, I wondered if somebody might know!

My question this evening is; why is it that certain non-ministerial bodies of the Civil Service are folded under a “main” ministerial department with a Secretary of State, but others aren’t?

I was looking recently at Civil Service employment statistics, as I was interested to see which departments had the most and least employees. I discovered that the Ministry of Justice has the most employees… but this is largely down to HM Prison & Probation Service, which is huge, being folded under it.

Now, HM Prison & Probation Service, as an operational department of the justice system, is folded under the Ministry of Justice… but the Crown Prosecution Service, another operational department of the justice system, isn’t. Why is this?

Another odd example; why is HM Revenue & Customs not folded under HM Treasury? HMRC is arguably an operational department of the Treasury, ensuring that its tax policy is carried out, yet it’s considered an entirely separate department rather than being folded under the Treasury.

Yet HM Land Registry, as an operational department of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, is folded under it… I could reel off a number of examples, but the inconsistency doesn’t immediately make sense to me!

I know this probably seems like a most random question, but I just found it odd when viewing the stats and looking at Wikipedia!

 

[rob666]

The running of government is more like Alice in Wonderland than anything sensible Matt.

Departments grow and expand to meet the needs of the organisation, almost organically, in relation to other departments responsibilities...all a little topsy turvey in response to new and current needs and issues.

In relation to Treasury and Rev and Customs...
The Treasury deals with the big numbers and overall rules regarding finance, Rev and Customs basically collect the money for the Treasury to spend.

All the departments have boundaries, some overlapping, and new rules to mess things up further happen every year, just to keep us confused and on our toes.
Every department also wants to expand and empire build, all part of a Service that, at times, is everything but Civil.

Edit...Cheers Matt, triggering long distant bits of my dodgy education...

Many many years ago, a guy far wiser than me explained it thus...
Don't think of it all as a large pie that is sliced up into neat departments, it is more a pile of overlapping pancakes with a hidden hierarchy determining who gets to lie on top of the others.

Forty years in the back of the mind, who thought it would be of minor use one day.

Forty, magic word and number like no other...

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I have not so much a bizarre question, but more of a random one. As there are quite a few keen politicos on here, I wondered if somebody might know!

My question this evening is; why is it that certain non-ministerial bodies of the Civil Service are folded under a “main” ministerial department with a Secretary of State, but others aren’t?

I was looking recently at Civil Service employment statistics, as I was interested to see which departments had the most and least employees. I discovered that the Ministry of Justice has the most employees… but this is largely down to HM Prison & Probation Service, which is huge, being folded under it.

Now, HM Prison & Probation Service, as an operational department of the justice system, is folded under the Ministry of Justice… but the Crown Prosecution Service, another operational department of the justice system, isn’t. Why is this?

Another odd example; why is HM Revenue & Customs not folded under HM Treasury? HMRC is arguably an operational department of the Treasury, ensuring that its tax policy is carried out, yet it’s considered an entirely separate department rather than being folded under the Treasury.

Yet HM Land Registry, as an operational department of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, is folded under it… I could reel off a number of examples, but the inconsistency doesn’t immediately make sense to me!

I know this probably seems like a most random question, but I just found it odd when viewing the stats and looking at Wikipedia!

Ah Matt, you have stumbled into the murky waters of the British Constitution, but the distinction essentially boils down to Executive Agencies versus Non-Ministerial Departments. HMPPS is an Executive Agency folded under MoJ, because running prisons is a matter of operational policy and funding. The Minister is directly responsible for the system, so it sits within their department.

The CPS and HMRC, however, are Non-Ministerial Departments because they require constitutional independence to uphold the separation of powers. If the CPS were under the MoJ, a politician could theoretically instruct prosecutors to charge opponents or protect friends. Similarly, while the Treasury sets tax policy, HMRC must collect it independently to ensure the Chancellor cannot interfere in individual tax affairs or order audits on their rivals.

TLDR: If a body carries out government policy, it is usually folded under a Department. If it needs to make specific legal or financial decisions free from political bias, it must remain independent.

 

[rob666]

I trust Matt, that you have watched every episode of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, at least twice, and taken careful notes, now you are on "The Inside".

 

[Slugjc]

I've seen the Thick of it. Assume yes minister is the same with less swearing

 

[Matt N]

I watched The Thick of It prior to joining, and to be honest, part of me feared that that was what working in the Civil Service would be like… but now I’ve been in 3 months, it’s a lovely atmosphere! I can’t vouch for different roles, teams or departments, but I certainly know that my team is warm, friendly, knowledgeable and supportive! The experience thus far has given me a profoundly positive view of the Civil Service as an employer and certainly made me hope that a permanent position pans out for me in 2026.

Thanks for the in-depth answers; that does make sense when you say it like that. I don’t know if Wikipedia is getting its terminology mixed up, but it seems to suggest that some other “non-ministerial departments” still have “parent departments”; for example, Homes England is parented by MHCLG, Ofsted is parented by DfE, ONS is parented by the Cabinet Office (although in this case, UK Statistics Authority are apparently an interim parent between ONS and the Cabinet Office)… maybe it’s one of those things where there are special cases! Or, as I say, Wikipedia could be mixing up its terminology…

I have another query; does a non-ministerial department automatically get considered a “quango”, as labelled in the media (e.g. the recently abolished NHS England)? For example, the CPS, HMRC or the watchdogs like Ofsted, Ofgem etc; are they considered quangos? If not, what makes a civil service body be considered a “quango” in the vein that people often want abolished?

I know this sounds like such a random topic to discuss, but I am keen to learn a bit more about the wider Civil Service and its workings seeing as I’ve now found myself working within it and hope to become a permanent part of it in 2026!

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I watched The Thick of It prior to joining, and to be honest, part of me feared that that was what working in the Civil Service would be like… but now I’ve been in 3 months, it’s a lovely atmosphere! I can’t vouch for different roles, teams or departments, but I certainly know that my team is warm, friendly, knowledgeable and supportive! The experience thus far has given me a profoundly positive view of the Civil Service as an employer and certainly made me hope that a permanent position pans out for me in 2026.

Thanks for the in-depth answers; that does make sense when you say it like that. I don’t know if Wikipedia is getting its terminology mixed up, but it seems to suggest that some other “non-ministerial departments” still have “parent departments”; for example, Homes England is parented by MHCLG, Ofsted is parented by DfE, ONS is parented by the Cabinet Office (although in this case, UK Statistics Authority are apparently an interim parent between ONS and the Cabinet Office)… maybe it’s one of those things where there are special cases! Or, as I say, Wikipedia could be mixing up its terminology…

I have another query; does a non-ministerial department automatically get considered a “quango”, as labelled in the media (e.g. the recently abolished NHS England)? For example, the CPS, HMRC or the watchdogs like Ofsted, Ofgem etc; are they considered quangos? If not, what makes a civil service body be considered a “quango” in the vein that people often want abolished?

I know this sounds like such a random topic to discuss, but I am keen to learn a bit more about the wider Civil Service and its workings seeing as I’ve now found myself working within it and hope to become a permanent part of it in 2026!

I am very glad to hear that your team is welcoming. The Thick of It is generally considered a documentary by those of us who have skirted around the edges of Westminster, but the chaos is usually confined to the Private Office and the SpAds. The actual machinery of the Civil Service is usually far more mundane and pleasant. Yes Minister, and Yes Prime Minister are much sharper and more cutting in their approach. They are very much worth the watch.

Homes England is not a Non-Ministerial Department. It is an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body (ENDPB). This means it is not part of the legal Crown, its staff are public sector workers rather than Civil Servants... mostly, and it has a "Sponsor Department" (MHCLG) that sets its budget and strategic direction, but leaves the day to day delivery to a board.

Ofsted (there's only one f in Ofsted), however, is a Non-Ministerial Department. The "parent" relationship with the Department for Education is purely for accountability. The Education Secretary answers questions in Parliament about Ofsted, but cannot legally tell Ofsted what grade to give a specific school.

Now, the quango.

Quango is not an official classification. It is an acronym for Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation. It is a political pejorative used by the press to describe any public body that spends taxpayer money but isn't directly run by a Minister.

Is HMRC a quango? No. It is a Non-Ministerial Department staffed by Civil Servants.

Is the CPS a quango? No. Same as above.

Is NHS England a quango? Yes. It is an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body. The Health Secretary sets the budget, but NHS England decides how to spend it. (Note: NHS England hasn't been abolished, it has absorbed NHS Digital and Health Education England).

Is the Environment Agency a Quango? Yes.

Other notable quangos include Arts Council England, the BBC, Ofcom, the Environment Agency, the Gambling Commission, the British Museum, and the Office for Students.

People call for them to be abolished because they view them as unaccountable bureaucrats. If a minister runs a department badly, you can vote them out. If the chair of a quango runs a service badly, the minister can shrug and say "It's an independent body, nothing to do with me," whilst the taxpayer still foots the bill.

They are a useful heat shield for politicians when things go wrong, and a convenient target for cuts when the Treasury needs to find £500 million for a theme park train station.

Clear as mud? Welcome to the machine.