seems irrational, but before you remove it, you need to understand why it might have been put there and that applies in other government departments. don t immediately rush to change things before understanding why they were there. as you say, while i was chancellor of the duchy of lancaster i became increasingly aware of the need for change and then as minister for the cabinet office i sought quickly to familiarise myself with those aspects of the operation of cabinet office that i had not been directly responsible for beforehand and became even more seized of the need for change in how it went. you became even more seized of the need for change in how it went. for change in how it went. you are not suggesting for change in how it went. you are not suggesting that for change in how it went. you are not suggesting that this not suggesting that this functionality if revealed in the heart of a government department is something that should not be addressed? something th
many things, but principally against stock and intellectual property but there were other things within that. on the one dynamically needed to prove to our auditors we had sufficient cash. the second side of it was we had to prove we had reasonable and achievable trading numbers that we were likely to hit as we went through the financial year which is 23. we ran more sensitised versions of those numbers and even i can remember to do a worse case scenario and then an even worse case scenario and then an even worse case scenario and then an even worse case scenario. hate worse case scenario and then an even worse case scenario. worse case scenario. we are up auainst worse case scenario. we are up against time worse case scenario. we are up against time to worse case scenario. we are up against time to some worse case scenario. we are up against time to some degree. l against time to some degree. according to the sunday times, wilko was advised according to the sunday t