Parris has been saying this for some years. It is very obviously true. You cannot look to the policing of the European coastline to resolve a problem which lies at the heart of the quality of government thousands of miles away.
The promise (to grant asylum to anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution) is one that no Western government ever intended to keep.
Mr. Roger, someone holding a political opinion that isn't yours is not sufficient grounds for blacklisting them.
Mr. Quincel, I did check Betfair for said market and it wasn't up.
One of the reasons I opted for Ladbrokes for most of my F1 betting was that it had more betting options than some other sites.
Even if that political opinion includes a distaste for Pakistanis?
Yes, I think so. I remember the Berufsverbot era when leftist people like me were banned from all kinds of non-political professions in Germany, and it seemed to me fundamentally unfair - why shouldn't I be able to drive a train or deliver post just because I favoured taxing the rich more heavily or nationalising the utilities? It's a slippery slope if we start banning people from non-political jobs because of their opinions, if they're legal (NB inciting to hatred is not legal, so a cricketer who supported a race riot should of course be banned).
I'd favour cricket clubs saying that their players shouldn't indulge in public behaviour which brought the club into disrepute, or harrass players on any grounds whatsoever. But if he wants to admire Trump and vote for a right-wing party privately, I don't think it's any of the club's business.
That such things even need to be said, is a sad reflection on the current state of society.
Of course political opinions shouldn’t stop anyone from getting a job.
It's kind of cringe but they're a public health organisation that needs to be on good terms with national governments to do their job. They arguably should have been more willing to piss off China over lab security or coverups or whatever but gratuitously pissing them off over an arbitrary name seems like a bad idea when they already just skipped a letter, they're not going run out of alphabets.
Mr. Roger, someone holding a political opinion that isn't yours is not sufficient grounds for blacklisting them.
Mr. Quincel, I did check Betfair for said market and it wasn't up.
One of the reasons I opted for Ladbrokes for most of my F1 betting was that it had more betting options than some other sites.
Even if that political opinion includes a distaste for Pakistanis?
Yes, I think so. I remember the Berufsverbot era when leftist people like me were banned from all kinds of non-political professions in Germany, and it seemed to me fundamentally unfair - why shouldn't I be able to drive a train or deliver post just because I favoured taxing the rich more heavily or nationalising the utilities? It's a slippery slope if we start banning people from non-political jobs because of their opinions, if they're legal (NB inciting to hatred is not legal, so a cricketer who supported a race riot should of course be banned).
I'd favour cricket clubs saying that their players shouldn't indulge in public behaviour which brought the club into disrepute, or harrass players on any grounds whatsoever. But if he wants to admire Trump and vote for a right-wing party privately, I don't think it's any of the club's business.
That such things even need to be said, is a sad reflection on the current state of society.
Of course political opinions shouldn’t stop anyone from getting a job.
That depends on the job. At a certain level, a political/campaigning/religious organisation ought to be able to insist that those employed by it share their beliefs, and don't act in ways contrary to those beliefs.
But, the general rule should be that so long as an employee does not let their political beliefs interfere with the job they are employed to do, such beliefs should not be a consideration.
Hasn't Vaughan been dropped because he is part of a major and highly controversial cricketing story and so would not be able to provide disinterested coverage and comment on it? His political views are not the reason - as he has been expressing those very clearly and very publicly for a number of years.
And if it is proved that he was entirely innocent of the comments made - or at least there is no supporting evidence that he did make them and so should not have been dropped - do you think it would be reasonable that he should be compensated for lost earnings? Or should the BBC be able to operate without consequences based on their own bias?
There are now three witnesses to the comments. How much evidence is required?
As I think Rafiq has said, it is easy to believe that the comments were made out of ignorance of how they would be received, and with no conscious malicious intent. As a result it is not surprising that Vaughan does not remember making them - why should he? There must be some way of allowing a reconciliation between the two accounts, that allows Vaughan to carry on with a broadcasting career, without having to imply that Rafiq (and the other two witnesses) were lying.
All good points but not really relevant to what I was saying, particularly given I made absolutely no implication that Rafiq was lying, exactly for the reasons you wrote here. The question is whether the BBC, as a public funded body, should be able to operate with impunity in attempting to destroy the careers of people for whatever reason - particularly bearing in mind they have a long record of doing this.
One of the reasons that I post pseudonymously here, rather than with my real identity, is that with a fairly standard employment contract my employer reserves the right to terminate my employment if I make any statement online that they decide reflects badly on them by association. Public reputation matters.
One of the reasons that Vaughan was employed by the BBC is because of his public standing as a former England captain. It's much more relevant to his employment in such a public role that he maintains a good reputation than that I, an obscure nobody, does so. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether having such harsh potential employment consequences for speaking freely on the internet is legitimate, but the BBC are not at all out of line in doing so. Very middle of the road orthodoxy.
This is an area that I genuinely struggle with. I worry about people having their lives ruined for one momentary indiscretion. But then, on the other hand, if people do not want to associate with, or work with, or consume media featuring people who make them uncomfortable, because of said indiscretion, are they not free to exercise that choice? And if the BBC know that some of the players Vaughan might interview would be unhappy about that, or if many listeners might refuse to listen to Vaughan, is that not something they are allowed to react to?
I don't like the idea of creating social outcasts, and of course everyone should worry about social disapproval making them outcasts if it is allowed too free a rein - this was the fate of many to be unjustly ostracised in the past - but social approval/disapproval is one way for us to democratically mediate what we think is an acceptable level of behaviour that avoids involving the state and law in the minutiae of our lives, so I believe it must have a role to play.
In any event, it is clear that there is still work for the SNP to do before it would have a good chance of winning any second independence ballot. On average four polls of indyref2 vote intentions put (after excluding Don’t Knows) Yes on 48% and No on 52%. That puts Yes slightly adrift of the 49% it registered between June and September, but is in line with the 48% recorded in those polls conducted immediately before last May’s Holyrood election. Meanwhile, the latest reading of the alternative question preferred by the Scotland in Union campaign, which asks people whether they would vote to remain in or leave the UK, put support for remaining (at 59%) up slightly (by two points) on the previous figure in September. The electoral needle on Scotland’s constitutional question appears currently to be stuck at a point where holding indyref2 any time soon would look like a considerable gamble for Nicola Sturgeon.
Quite remarkable that you can ask a simple binary question like that twice, and get 7% of the entire population to switch sides just by phrasing it differently.
If that second referendum ever happens, it's entirely possible that the UK Government could win it at the outset just by dictating the wording of the proposition.
It wouldn't be the UK Government - it would be the Electoral Commission which after the 2014 SindyRef but before the 2016EuRef decided that "positively" phrased questions "yes/no" were biased in favour of "yes" which is why the Brexit referendum was not "Should the UK leave (or remain in) the EU Yes/No" but the posed "Leave/Remain" question.
I expect a huge fight then claims of a "rigged" result when "Leave" doesn't win - which is strange, as last time a Leave/Remain question was posed "Leave" won.
A good point about the effects of the precise referendum question.
In 2014, the PM acquiesced to FM Salmond’s preferred question, but ahead of the 2016 EU referendum the Electoral Commission were asked to consult and test extensively on referendum questions, with the result of the Remain and Leave options.
It would be awfully difficult to go back to the 2014 question for any future referendum, having done that research.
In any event, it is clear that there is still work for the SNP to do before it would have a good chance of winning any second independence ballot. On average four polls of indyref2 vote intentions put (after excluding Don’t Knows) Yes on 48% and No on 52%. That puts Yes slightly adrift of the 49% it registered between June and September, but is in line with the 48% recorded in those polls conducted immediately before last May’s Holyrood election. Meanwhile, the latest reading of the alternative question preferred by the Scotland in Union campaign, which asks people whether they would vote to remain in or leave the UK, put support for remaining (at 59%) up slightly (by two points) on the previous figure in September. The electoral needle on Scotland’s constitutional question appears currently to be stuck at a point where holding indyref2 any time soon would look like a considerable gamble for Nicola Sturgeon.
Quite remarkable that you can ask a simple binary question like that twice, and get 7% of the entire population to switch sides just by phrasing it differently.
If that second referendum ever happens, it's entirely possible that the UK Government could win it at the outset just by dictating the wording of the proposition.
It wouldn't be the UK Government - it would be the Electoral Commission which after the 2014 SindyRef but before the 2016EuRef decided that "positively" phrased questions "yes/no" were biased in favour of "yes" which is why the Brexit referendum was not "Should the UK leave (or remain in) the EU Yes/No" but the posed "Leave/Remain" question.
I expect a huge fight then claims of a "rigged" result when "Leave" doesn't win - which is strange, as last time a Leave/Remain question was posed "Leave" won.
A good point about the effects of the precise referendum question.
In 2014, the PM acquiesced to FM Salmond’s preferred question, but ahead of the 2016 EU referendum the Electoral Commission were asked to consult and test extensively on referendum questions, with the result of the Remain and Leave options.
It would be awfully difficult to go back to the 2014 question for any future referendum, having done that research.
I disagree. It should be exactly the same as last time. That it should have been different then doesn't alter the fact that changing the options now would add unnecessary complexity to the matter.
Hasn't Vaughan been dropped because he is part of a major and highly controversial cricketing story and so would not be able to provide disinterested coverage and comment on it? His political views are not the reason - as he has been expressing those very clearly and very publicly for a number of years.
And if it is proved that he was entirely innocent of the comments made - or at least there is no supporting evidence that he did make them and so should not have been dropped - do you think it would be reasonable that he should be compensated for lost earnings? Or should the BBC be able to operate without consequences based on their own bias?
There are now three witnesses to the comments. How much evidence is required?
As I think Rafiq has said, it is easy to believe that the comments were made out of ignorance of how they would be received, and with no conscious malicious intent. As a result it is not surprising that Vaughan does not remember making them - why should he? There must be some way of allowing a reconciliation between the two accounts, that allows Vaughan to carry on with a broadcasting career, without having to imply that Rafiq (and the other two witnesses) were lying.
All good points but not really relevant to what I was saying, particularly given I made absolutely no implication that Rafiq was lying, exactly for the reasons you wrote here. The question is whether the BBC, as a public funded body, should be able to operate with impunity in attempting to destroy the careers of people for whatever reason - particularly bearing in mind they have a long record of doing this.
One of the reasons that I post pseudonymously here, rather than with my real identity, is that with a fairly standard employment contract my employer reserves the right to terminate my employment if I make any statement online that they decide reflects badly on them by association. Public reputation matters.
One of the reasons that Vaughan was employed by the BBC is because of his public standing as a former England captain. It's much more relevant to his employment in such a public role that he maintains a good reputation than that I, an obscure nobody, does so. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether having such harsh potential employment consequences for speaking freely on the internet is legitimate, but the BBC are not at all out of line in doing so. Very middle of the road orthodoxy.
This is an area that I genuinely struggle with. I worry about people having their lives ruined for one momentary indiscretion. But then, on the other hand, if people do not want to associate with, or work with, or consume media featuring people who make them uncomfortable, because of said indiscretion, are they not free to exercise that choice? And if the BBC know that some of the players Vaughan might interview would be unhappy about that, or if many listeners might refuse to listen to Vaughan, is that not something they are allowed to react to?
I don't like the idea of creating social outcasts, and of course everyone should worry about social disapproval making them outcasts if it is allowed too free a rein - this was the fate of many to be unjustly ostracised in the past - but social approval/disapproval is one way for us to democratically mediate what we think is an acceptable level of behaviour that avoids involving the state and law in the minutiae of our lives, so I believe it must have a role to play.
The danger is that it gives an incentive to organisations to campaign for boycotts of companies who employ people they don't like. That seems more of a feature of the USA than this country, but it's a strategy employed by both Right and Left over there, and is hardly healthy.
I'm no fan of China and despise President Xi but skipping a person's name isn't pathetic.
It presumably wouldn't have been a problem with Chinese names if we'd used some sort of equivalent system from the Chinese language (though of course they don't have an alphabet in the same way, but I'm sure you could find something), and then it might have been that one of the names in their sequence happened to sound a bit like a Western name, like "Joe", perhaps, and so out of politeness that might then have been skipped.
In any event, it is clear that there is still work for the SNP to do before it would have a good chance of winning any second independence ballot. On average four polls of indyref2 vote intentions put (after excluding Don’t Knows) Yes on 48% and No on 52%. That puts Yes slightly adrift of the 49% it registered between June and September, but is in line with the 48% recorded in those polls conducted immediately before last May’s Holyrood election. Meanwhile, the latest reading of the alternative question preferred by the Scotland in Union campaign, which asks people whether they would vote to remain in or leave the UK, put support for remaining (at 59%) up slightly (by two points) on the previous figure in September. The electoral needle on Scotland’s constitutional question appears currently to be stuck at a point where holding indyref2 any time soon would look like a considerable gamble for Nicola Sturgeon.
Quite remarkable that you can ask a simple binary question like that twice, and get 7% of the entire population to switch sides just by phrasing it differently.
If that second referendum ever happens, it's entirely possible that the UK Government could win it at the outset just by dictating the wording of the proposition.
It wouldn't be the UK Government - it would be the Electoral Commission which after the 2014 SindyRef but before the 2016EuRef decided that "positively" phrased questions "yes/no" were biased in favour of "yes" which is why the Brexit referendum was not "Should the UK leave (or remain in) the EU Yes/No" but the posed "Leave/Remain" question.
I expect a huge fight then claims of a "rigged" result when "Leave" doesn't win - which is strange, as last time a Leave/Remain question was posed "Leave" won.
A good point about the effects of the precise referendum question.
In 2014, the PM acquiesced to FM Salmond’s preferred question, but ahead of the 2016 EU referendum the Electoral Commission were asked to consult and test extensively on referendum questions, with the result of the Remain and Leave options.
It would be awfully difficult to go back to the 2014 question for any future referendum, having done that research.
Acquiesced my arse. It was all done with Electoral Commission testing and approvals. You unionist imperialists really hate democracy.
I'm no fan of China and despise President Xi but skipping a person's name isn't pathetic.
It presumably wouldn't have been a problem with Chinese names if we'd used some sort of equivalent system from the Chinese language (though of course they don't have an alphabet in the same way, but I'm sure you could find something), and then it might have been that one of the names in their sequence happened to sound a bit like a Western name, like "Joe", perhaps, and so out of politeness that might then have been skipped.
Exactly.
There's a lot of things China and the WHO have done wrong in this pandemic, and more generally too for China . . . but skipping a person's name is not one of them.
Expecting to have a Xi variant is as immature and childish as calling something the Boris variant.
It’s a fluid situation with inspections, counting fences to still see if they have enough, The Great British Weather has cancelled Bangor cards, but it looks like everything else will, touch wood, go ahead?
Glen Forsa has come in to favourite as Stodge said it would with Stodge already on it before the movement.
Well, whatever I was expecting to see when I looked out of the window this morning, it wasn’t four inches of snow and more still falling.
Sunshine and blue sky here, a beautiful day.
Morning Malky. Ditto here. Crisp and chilly in the snell north wind. Slate loose from the roof of my late father's house, though - annoyingly. Not nearly as bad as the coast though - real damage along the east coast.
Hasn't Vaughan been dropped because he is part of a major and highly controversial cricketing story and so would not be able to provide disinterested coverage and comment on it? His political views are not the reason - as he has been expressing those very clearly and very publicly for a number of years.
And if it is proved that he was entirely innocent of the comments made - or at least there is no supporting evidence that he did make them and so should not have been dropped - do you think it would be reasonable that he should be compensated for lost earnings? Or should the BBC be able to operate without consequences based on their own bias?
There are now three witnesses to the comments. How much evidence is required?
As I think Rafiq has said, it is easy to believe that the comments were made out of ignorance of how they would be received, and with no conscious malicious intent. As a result it is not surprising that Vaughan does not remember making them - why should he? There must be some way of allowing a reconciliation between the two accounts, that allows Vaughan to carry on with a broadcasting career, without having to imply that Rafiq (and the other two witnesses) were lying.
All good points but not really relevant to what I was saying, particularly given I made absolutely no implication that Rafiq was lying, exactly for the reasons you wrote here. The question is whether the BBC, as a public funded body, should be able to operate with impunity in attempting to destroy the careers of people for whatever reason - particularly bearing in mind they have a long record of doing this.
The BBC should be free to choose who they employ just like any other employer. The BBC is not even the best paying cricket reporters gig. Nothing the BBC does is stopping Vaughan working at Sky, Talk Sport or elsewhere if they want him.
The "covid is a hoax"-ers of the antivax movement could have had a field day with a xi variant.
It's just Xi-ence fiction.
I'm sure that has nothing at all to do with why they skipped it, but they probably should put any potential virus names to the pun-gents here to make sure they can't easily be made fun of!
Well, whatever I was expecting to see when I looked out of the window this morning, it wasn’t four inches of snow and more still falling.
Sunshine and blue sky here, a beautiful day.
Morning Malky. Ditto here. Crisp and chilly in the snell north wind. Slate loose from the roof of my late father's house, though - annoyingly. Not nearly as bad as the coast though - real damage along the east coast.
Morning Carnyx, was windy here last night , not unusual though. Was out in car and you could feel it. Did not last long as no wind at all today, though cold.
Hasn't Vaughan been dropped because he is part of a major and highly controversial cricketing story and so would not be able to provide disinterested coverage and comment on it? His political views are not the reason - as he has been expressing those very clearly and very publicly for a number of years.
And if it is proved that he was entirely innocent of the comments made - or at least there is no supporting evidence that he did make them and so should not have been dropped - do you think it would be reasonable that he should be compensated for lost earnings? Or should the BBC be able to operate without consequences based on their own bias?
There are now three witnesses to the comments. How much evidence is required?
As I think Rafiq has said, it is easy to believe that the comments were made out of ignorance of how they would be received, and with no conscious malicious intent. As a result it is not surprising that Vaughan does not remember making them - why should he? There must be some way of allowing a reconciliation between the two accounts, that allows Vaughan to carry on with a broadcasting career, without having to imply that Rafiq (and the other two witnesses) were lying.
All good points but not really relevant to what I was saying, particularly given I made absolutely no implication that Rafiq was lying, exactly for the reasons you wrote here. The question is whether the BBC, as a public funded body, should be able to operate with impunity in attempting to destroy the careers of people for whatever reason - particularly bearing in mind they have a long record of doing this.
One of the reasons that I post pseudonymously here, rather than with my real identity, is that with a fairly standard employment contract my employer reserves the right to terminate my employment if I make any statement online that they decide reflects badly on them by association. Public reputation matters.
One of the reasons that Vaughan was employed by the BBC is because of his public standing as a former England captain. It's much more relevant to his employment in such a public role that he maintains a good reputation than that I, an obscure nobody, does so. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether having such harsh potential employment consequences for speaking freely on the internet is legitimate, but the BBC are not at all out of line in doing so. Very middle of the road orthodoxy.
This is an area that I genuinely struggle with. I worry about people having their lives ruined for one momentary indiscretion. But then, on the other hand, if people do not want to associate with, or work with, or consume media featuring people who make them uncomfortable, because of said indiscretion, are they not free to exercise that choice? And if the BBC know that some of the players Vaughan might interview would be unhappy about that, or if many listeners might refuse to listen to Vaughan, is that not something they are allowed to react to?
I don't like the idea of creating social outcasts, and of course everyone should worry about social disapproval making them outcasts if it is allowed too free a rein - this was the fate of many to be unjustly ostracised in the past - but social approval/disapproval is one way for us to democratically mediate what we think is an acceptable level of behaviour that avoids involving the state and law in the minutiae of our lives, so I believe it must have a role to play.
The danger is that it gives an incentive to organisations to campaign for boycotts of companies who employ people they don't like. That seems more of a feature of the USA than this country, but it's a strategy employed by both Right and Left over there, and is hardly healthy.
The Vaughan question - like all of these - is a matter of fact and degree.
As we have it, the BBC have acted to punish Vaughan and leave him swinging in the wind when there is only an allegation and a denial, and the allegation from an individual who forgot his own record, before the BBC investigation has even reported back aiui. Is that account wrong?
That seems to me to be the antithsis of due or fair process.
I think the BBC needs to be held to account for that.
Hasn't Vaughan been dropped because he is part of a major and highly controversial cricketing story and so would not be able to provide disinterested coverage and comment on it? His political views are not the reason - as he has been expressing those very clearly and very publicly for a number of years.
And if it is proved that he was entirely innocent of the comments made - or at least there is no supporting evidence that he did make them and so should not have been dropped - do you think it would be reasonable that he should be compensated for lost earnings? Or should the BBC be able to operate without consequences based on their own bias?
There are now three witnesses to the comments. How much evidence is required?
As I think Rafiq has said, it is easy to believe that the comments were made out of ignorance of how they would be received, and with no conscious malicious intent. As a result it is not surprising that Vaughan does not remember making them - why should he? There must be some way of allowing a reconciliation between the two accounts, that allows Vaughan to carry on with a broadcasting career, without having to imply that Rafiq (and the other two witnesses) were lying.
All good points but not really relevant to what I was saying, particularly given I made absolutely no implication that Rafiq was lying, exactly for the reasons you wrote here. The question is whether the BBC, as a public funded body, should be able to operate with impunity in attempting to destroy the careers of people for whatever reason - particularly bearing in mind they have a long record of doing this.
One of the reasons that I post pseudonymously here, rather than with my real identity, is that with a fairly standard employment contract my employer reserves the right to terminate my employment if I make any statement online that they decide reflects badly on them by association. Public reputation matters.
One of the reasons that Vaughan was employed by the BBC is because of his public standing as a former England captain. It's much more relevant to his employment in such a public role that he maintains a good reputation than that I, an obscure nobody, does so. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether having such harsh potential employment consequences for speaking freely on the internet is legitimate, but the BBC are not at all out of line in doing so. Very middle of the road orthodoxy.
This is an area that I genuinely struggle with. I worry about people having their lives ruined for one momentary indiscretion. But then, on the other hand, if people do not want to associate with, or work with, or consume media featuring people who make them uncomfortable, because of said indiscretion, are they not free to exercise that choice? And if the BBC know that some of the players Vaughan might interview would be unhappy about that, or if many listeners might refuse to listen to Vaughan, is that not something they are allowed to react to?
I don't like the idea of creating social outcasts, and of course everyone should worry about social disapproval making them outcasts if it is allowed too free a rein - this was the fate of many to be unjustly ostracised in the past - but social approval/disapproval is one way for us to democratically mediate what we think is an acceptable level of behaviour that avoids involving the state and law in the minutiae of our lives, so I believe it must have a role to play.
The danger is that it gives an incentive to organisations to campaign for boycotts of companies who employ people they don't like. That seems more of a feature of the USA than this country, but it's a strategy employed by both Right and Left over there, and is hardly healthy.
The Vaughan - like all of these - is a matter of fact and degree.
As we have it, the BBC have acted to punish Vaughan and leave him swinging in the wind when there is only an allegation and a denial, and the allegation from an individual who forgot his own record, before the BBC investigation has even reported back aiui. Is that account wrong?
That seems to me to be the antithsis of due or fair process.
I think the BBC needs to be held to account for that.
Weren't there three allegations, or at least an allegation from three individuals?
Mr. Roger, someone holding a political opinion that isn't yours is not sufficient grounds for blacklisting them.
Mr. Quincel, I did check Betfair for said market and it wasn't up.
One of the reasons I opted for Ladbrokes for most of my F1 betting was that it had more betting options than some other sites.
Even if that political opinion includes a distaste for Pakistanis?
Yes, I think so. I remember the Berufsverbot era when leftist people like me were banned from all kinds of non-political professions in Germany, and it seemed to me fundamentally unfair - why shouldn't I be able to drive a train or deliver post just because I favoured taxing the rich more heavily or nationalising the utilities? It's a slippery slope if we start banning people from non-political jobs because of their opinions, if they're legal (NB inciting to hatred is not legal, so a cricketer who supported a race riot should of course be banned).
I'd favour cricket clubs saying that their players shouldn't indulge in public behaviour which brought the club into disrepute, or harrass players on any grounds whatsoever. But if he wants to admire Trump and vote for a right-wing party privately, I don't think it's any of the club's business.
That such things even need to be said, is a sad reflection on the current state of society.
Of course political opinions shouldn’t stop anyone from getting a job.
The issue is finding the boundary.
In motivated hands, a "reputational damage" policy becomes applied politically.
In any event, it is clear that there is still work for the SNP to do before it would have a good chance of winning any second independence ballot. On average four polls of indyref2 vote intentions put (after excluding Don’t Knows) Yes on 48% and No on 52%. That puts Yes slightly adrift of the 49% it registered between June and September, but is in line with the 48% recorded in those polls conducted immediately before last May’s Holyrood election. Meanwhile, the latest reading of the alternative question preferred by the Scotland in Union campaign, which asks people whether they would vote to remain in or leave the UK, put support for remaining (at 59%) up slightly (by two points) on the previous figure in September. The electoral needle on Scotland’s constitutional question appears currently to be stuck at a point where holding indyref2 any time soon would look like a considerable gamble for Nicola Sturgeon.
Quite remarkable that you can ask a simple binary question like that twice, and get 7% of the entire population to switch sides just by phrasing it differently.
If that second referendum ever happens, it's entirely possible that the UK Government could win it at the outset just by dictating the wording of the proposition.
It wouldn't be the UK Government - it would be the Electoral Commission which after the 2014 SindyRef but before the 2016EuRef decided that "positively" phrased questions "yes/no" were biased in favour of "yes" which is why the Brexit referendum was not "Should the UK leave (or remain in) the EU Yes/No" but the posed "Leave/Remain" question.
I expect a huge fight then claims of a "rigged" result when "Leave" doesn't win - which is strange, as last time a Leave/Remain question was posed "Leave" won.
A good point about the effects of the precise referendum question.
In 2014, the PM acquiesced to FM Salmond’s preferred question, but ahead of the 2016 EU referendum the Electoral Commission were asked to consult and test extensively on referendum questions, with the result of the Remain and Leave options.
It would be awfully difficult to go back to the 2014 question for any future referendum, having done that research.
Acquiesced my arse. It was all done with Electoral Commission testing and approvals. You unionist imperialists really hate democracy.
If there’s anything that persuades me that Unionists are confident of their case, it’s them spending 95% of the time saying Scotland is not going to be allowed another referendum and the other 5% saying the UK government should dictate the wording of the question in this referendum which we are not going to be allowed.
That single poll which showed Yes ahead in the week before 18/09/14 left deep scars.
I'm no fan of China and despise President Xi but skipping a person's name isn't pathetic.
It presumably wouldn't have been a problem with Chinese names if we'd used some sort of equivalent system from the Chinese language (though of course they don't have an alphabet in the same way, but I'm sure you could find something), and then it might have been that one of the names in their sequence happened to sound a bit like a Western name, like "Joe", perhaps, and so out of politeness that might then have been skipped.
Exactly.
There's a lot of things China and the WHO have done wrong in this pandemic, and more generally too for China . . . but skipping a person's name is not one of them.
Expecting to have a Xi variant is as immature and childish as calling something the Boris variant.
It was called the Johnson variant, AIR. Didn't take off. Or rather it did but it didn't, if you see what I mean.
Hasn't Vaughan been dropped because he is part of a major and highly controversial cricketing story and so would not be able to provide disinterested coverage and comment on it? His political views are not the reason - as he has been expressing those very clearly and very publicly for a number of years.
And if it is proved that he was entirely innocent of the comments made - or at least there is no supporting evidence that he did make them and so should not have been dropped - do you think it would be reasonable that he should be compensated for lost earnings? Or should the BBC be able to operate without consequences based on their own bias?
There are now three witnesses to the comments. How much evidence is required?
As I think Rafiq has said, it is easy to believe that the comments were made out of ignorance of how they would be received, and with no conscious malicious intent. As a result it is not surprising that Vaughan does not remember making them - why should he? There must be some way of allowing a reconciliation between the two accounts, that allows Vaughan to carry on with a broadcasting career, without having to imply that Rafiq (and the other two witnesses) were lying.
All good points but not really relevant to what I was saying, particularly given I made absolutely no implication that Rafiq was lying, exactly for the reasons you wrote here. The question is whether the BBC, as a public funded body, should be able to operate with impunity in attempting to destroy the careers of people for whatever reason - particularly bearing in mind they have a long record of doing this.
The BBC should be free to choose who they employ just like any other employer. The BBC is not even the best paying cricket reporters gig. Nothing the BBC does is stopping Vaughan working at Sky, Talk Sport or elsewhere if they want him.
Does GB News have sports reporting?
*entirely un-innocent face*
Excellent coverage of the Middle Eastern teams in the transmanche regatta with a subject matter expert commentator who really knows his stuff.
Hasn't Vaughan been dropped because he is part of a major and highly controversial cricketing story and so would not be able to provide disinterested coverage and comment on it? His political views are not the reason - as he has been expressing those very clearly and very publicly for a number of years.
And if it is proved that he was entirely innocent of the comments made - or at least there is no supporting evidence that he did make them and so should not have been dropped - do you think it would be reasonable that he should be compensated for lost earnings? Or should the BBC be able to operate without consequences based on their own bias?
There are now three witnesses to the comments. How much evidence is required?
As I think Rafiq has said, it is easy to believe that the comments were made out of ignorance of how they would be received, and with no conscious malicious intent. As a result it is not surprising that Vaughan does not remember making them - why should he? There must be some way of allowing a reconciliation between the two accounts, that allows Vaughan to carry on with a broadcasting career, without having to imply that Rafiq (and the other two witnesses) were lying.
All good points but not really relevant to what I was saying, particularly given I made absolutely no implication that Rafiq was lying, exactly for the reasons you wrote here. The question is whether the BBC, as a public funded body, should be able to operate with impunity in attempting to destroy the careers of people for whatever reason - particularly bearing in mind they have a long record of doing this.
One of the reasons that I post pseudonymously here, rather than with my real identity, is that with a fairly standard employment contract my employer reserves the right to terminate my employment if I make any statement online that they decide reflects badly on them by association. Public reputation matters.
One of the reasons that Vaughan was employed by the BBC is because of his public standing as a former England captain. It's much more relevant to his employment in such a public role that he maintains a good reputation than that I, an obscure nobody, does so. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether having such harsh potential employment consequences for speaking freely on the internet is legitimate, but the BBC are not at all out of line in doing so. Very middle of the road orthodoxy.
This is an area that I genuinely struggle with. I worry about people having their lives ruined for one momentary indiscretion. But then, on the other hand, if people do not want to associate with, or work with, or consume media featuring people who make them uncomfortable, because of said indiscretion, are they not free to exercise that choice? And if the BBC know that some of the players Vaughan might interview would be unhappy about that, or if many listeners might refuse to listen to Vaughan, is that not something they are allowed to react to?
I don't like the idea of creating social outcasts, and of course everyone should worry about social disapproval making them outcasts if it is allowed too free a rein - this was the fate of many to be unjustly ostracised in the past - but social approval/disapproval is one way for us to democratically mediate what we think is an acceptable level of behaviour that avoids involving the state and law in the minutiae of our lives, so I believe it must have a role to play.
The danger is that it gives an incentive to organisations to campaign for boycotts of companies who employ people they don't like. That seems more of a feature of the USA than this country, but it's a strategy employed by both Right and Left over there, and is hardly healthy.
The Vaughan question - like all of these - is a matter of fact and degree.
As we have it, the BBC have acted to punish Vaughan and leave him swinging in the wind when there is only an allegation and a denial, and the allegation from an individual who forgot his own record, before the BBC investigation has even reported back aiui. Is that account wrong?
That seems to me to be the antithsis of due or fair process.
I think the BBC needs to be held to account for that.
No that account is wrong.
There have been multiple allegations which have been corroborated by multiple witnesses.
Being suspended while investigations are carried out is precisely "due or fair process" and its not "swinging in the wind". To be sacked without an investigation would be unfair and not following due process, but to be suspended while investigations are ongoing is standard procedure.
It’s a fluid situation with inspections, counting fences to still see if they have enough, The Great British Weather has cancelled Bangor cards, but it looks like everything else will, touch wood, go ahead?
Glen Forsa has come in to favourite as Stodge said it would with Stodge already on it before the movement.
I love the flat - it's in my top 5 fav sports - but I've never been able to get into the jumps anything like as much.
Hasn't Vaughan been dropped because he is part of a major and highly controversial cricketing story and so would not be able to provide disinterested coverage and comment on it? His political views are not the reason - as he has been expressing those very clearly and very publicly for a number of years.
And if it is proved that he was entirely innocent of the comments made - or at least there is no supporting evidence that he did make them and so should not have been dropped - do you think it would be reasonable that he should be compensated for lost earnings? Or should the BBC be able to operate without consequences based on their own bias?
There are now three witnesses to the comments. How much evidence is required?
As I think Rafiq has said, it is easy to believe that the comments were made out of ignorance of how they would be received, and with no conscious malicious intent. As a result it is not surprising that Vaughan does not remember making them - why should he? There must be some way of allowing a reconciliation between the two accounts, that allows Vaughan to carry on with a broadcasting career, without having to imply that Rafiq (and the other two witnesses) were lying.
All good points but not really relevant to what I was saying, particularly given I made absolutely no implication that Rafiq was lying, exactly for the reasons you wrote here. The question is whether the BBC, as a public funded body, should be able to operate with impunity in attempting to destroy the careers of people for whatever reason - particularly bearing in mind they have a long record of doing this.
One of the reasons that I post pseudonymously here, rather than with my real identity, is that with a fairly standard employment contract my employer reserves the right to terminate my employment if I make any statement online that they decide reflects badly on them by association. Public reputation matters.
One of the reasons that Vaughan was employed by the BBC is because of his public standing as a former England captain. It's much more relevant to his employment in such a public role that he maintains a good reputation than that I, an obscure nobody, does so. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether having such harsh potential employment consequences for speaking freely on the internet is legitimate, but the BBC are not at all out of line in doing so. Very middle of the road orthodoxy.
This is an area that I genuinely struggle with. I worry about people having their lives ruined for one momentary indiscretion. But then, on the other hand, if people do not want to associate with, or work with, or consume media featuring people who make them uncomfortable, because of said indiscretion, are they not free to exercise that choice? And if the BBC know that some of the players Vaughan might interview would be unhappy about that, or if many listeners might refuse to listen to Vaughan, is that not something they are allowed to react to?
I don't like the idea of creating social outcasts, and of course everyone should worry about social disapproval making them outcasts if it is allowed too free a rein - this was the fate of many to be unjustly ostracised in the past - but social approval/disapproval is one way for us to democratically mediate what we think is an acceptable level of behaviour that avoids involving the state and law in the minutiae of our lives, so I believe it must have a role to play.
And yet Rafiq himself - the target of these comments - has said he is not happy with Vaughan being dumped. So who is to say who is, or is not, happy with being interviewed by him. If what you say is true then it is another example of an organisation taking it upon itself to be offended on behalf of someone else.
LOL....wouldn't be France if this didn't happen...
Married far-right firebrand Éric Zemmour gets chief aide pregnant
Éric Zemmour, the hard-right pundit who has broken into the French presidential race, was facing scandal yesterday with a report that his campaign director, who is 35 years his junior, is expecting his child.
Hasn't Vaughan been dropped because he is part of a major and highly controversial cricketing story and so would not be able to provide disinterested coverage and comment on it? His political views are not the reason - as he has been expressing those very clearly and very publicly for a number of years.
And if it is proved that he was entirely innocent of the comments made - or at least there is no supporting evidence that he did make them and so should not have been dropped - do you think it would be reasonable that he should be compensated for lost earnings? Or should the BBC be able to operate without consequences based on their own bias?
There are now three witnesses to the comments. How much evidence is required?
As I think Rafiq has said, it is easy to believe that the comments were made out of ignorance of how they would be received, and with no conscious malicious intent. As a result it is not surprising that Vaughan does not remember making them - why should he? There must be some way of allowing a reconciliation between the two accounts, that allows Vaughan to carry on with a broadcasting career, without having to imply that Rafiq (and the other two witnesses) were lying.
All good points but not really relevant to what I was saying, particularly given I made absolutely no implication that Rafiq was lying, exactly for the reasons you wrote here. The question is whether the BBC, as a public funded body, should be able to operate with impunity in attempting to destroy the careers of people for whatever reason - particularly bearing in mind they have a long record of doing this.
One of the reasons that I post pseudonymously here, rather than with my real identity, is that with a fairly standard employment contract my employer reserves the right to terminate my employment if I make any statement online that they decide reflects badly on them by association. Public reputation matters.
One of the reasons that Vaughan was employed by the BBC is because of his public standing as a former England captain. It's much more relevant to his employment in such a public role that he maintains a good reputation than that I, an obscure nobody, does so. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether having such harsh potential employment consequences for speaking freely on the internet is legitimate, but the BBC are not at all out of line in doing so. Very middle of the road orthodoxy.
This is an area that I genuinely struggle with. I worry about people having their lives ruined for one momentary indiscretion. But then, on the other hand, if people do not want to associate with, or work with, or consume media featuring people who make them uncomfortable, because of said indiscretion, are they not free to exercise that choice? And if the BBC know that some of the players Vaughan might interview would be unhappy about that, or if many listeners might refuse to listen to Vaughan, is that not something they are allowed to react to?
I don't like the idea of creating social outcasts, and of course everyone should worry about social disapproval making them outcasts if it is allowed too free a rein - this was the fate of many to be unjustly ostracised in the past - but social approval/disapproval is one way for us to democratically mediate what we think is an acceptable level of behaviour that avoids involving the state and law in the minutiae of our lives, so I believe it must have a role to play.
The danger is that it gives an incentive to organisations to campaign for boycotts of companies who employ people they don't like. That seems more of a feature of the USA than this country, but it's a strategy employed by both Right and Left over there, and is hardly healthy.
The Vaughan question - like all of these - is a matter of fact and degree.
As we have it, the BBC have acted to punish Vaughan and leave him swinging in the wind when there is only an allegation and a denial, and the allegation from an individual who forgot his own record, before the BBC investigation has even reported back aiui. Is that account wrong?
That seems to me to be the antithsis of due or fair process.
I think the BBC needs to be held to account for that.
There are two separate questions.
1. Is the allegation credible? Two other witnesses who were there have corroborated the account given by Rafiq. For most reasonable people that would be enough.
2. To what extent is the BBC obliged to continue its employment of Vaughan? We have laws to protect people from wrongful dismissal for good reason, but appeals to due process seem a bit overblown at times like this, and it is for circumstances like this that a clause of bringing an employer into disrepute exist - it's a catch-all that allows for you to be fired for bad publicity alone, not necessarily bad conduct. There are some people who are generally in favour of absolute freedom for employers to hire and fire at will - for the good of the economy - but then make very po-faced appeals to due process when someone is fired due to racism.
Hasn't Vaughan been dropped because he is part of a major and highly controversial cricketing story and so would not be able to provide disinterested coverage and comment on it? His political views are not the reason - as he has been expressing those very clearly and very publicly for a number of years.
And if it is proved that he was entirely innocent of the comments made - or at least there is no supporting evidence that he did make them and so should not have been dropped - do you think it would be reasonable that he should be compensated for lost earnings? Or should the BBC be able to operate without consequences based on their own bias?
There are now three witnesses to the comments. How much evidence is required?
As I think Rafiq has said, it is easy to believe that the comments were made out of ignorance of how they would be received, and with no conscious malicious intent. As a result it is not surprising that Vaughan does not remember making them - why should he? There must be some way of allowing a reconciliation between the two accounts, that allows Vaughan to carry on with a broadcasting career, without having to imply that Rafiq (and the other two witnesses) were lying.
All good points but not really relevant to what I was saying, particularly given I made absolutely no implication that Rafiq was lying, exactly for the reasons you wrote here. The question is whether the BBC, as a public funded body, should be able to operate with impunity in attempting to destroy the careers of people for whatever reason - particularly bearing in mind they have a long record of doing this.
One of the reasons that I post pseudonymously here, rather than with my real identity, is that with a fairly standard employment contract my employer reserves the right to terminate my employment if I make any statement online that they decide reflects badly on them by association. Public reputation matters.
One of the reasons that Vaughan was employed by the BBC is because of his public standing as a former England captain. It's much more relevant to his employment in such a public role that he maintains a good reputation than that I, an obscure nobody, does so. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether having such harsh potential employment consequences for speaking freely on the internet is legitimate, but the BBC are not at all out of line in doing so. Very middle of the road orthodoxy.
This is an area that I genuinely struggle with. I worry about people having their lives ruined for one momentary indiscretion. But then, on the other hand, if people do not want to associate with, or work with, or consume media featuring people who make them uncomfortable, because of said indiscretion, are they not free to exercise that choice? And if the BBC know that some of the players Vaughan might interview would be unhappy about that, or if many listeners might refuse to listen to Vaughan, is that not something they are allowed to react to?
I don't like the idea of creating social outcasts, and of course everyone should worry about social disapproval making them outcasts if it is allowed too free a rein - this was the fate of many to be unjustly ostracised in the past - but social approval/disapproval is one way for us to democratically mediate what we think is an acceptable level of behaviour that avoids involving the state and law in the minutiae of our lives, so I believe it must have a role to play.
The danger is that it gives an incentive to organisations to campaign for boycotts of companies who employ people they don't like. That seems more of a feature of the USA than this country, but it's a strategy employed by both Right and Left over there, and is hardly healthy.
The Vaughan question - like all of these - is a matter of fact and degree.
As we have it, the BBC have acted to punish Vaughan and leave him swinging in the wind when there is only an allegation and a denial, and the allegation from an individual who forgot his own record, before the BBC investigation has even reported back aiui. Is that account wrong?
That seems to me to be the antithsis of due or fair process.
I think the BBC needs to be held to account for that.
No that account is wrong.
There have been multiple allegations which have been corroborated by multiple witnesses.
Being suspended while investigations are carried out is precisely "due or fair process" and its not "swinging in the wind". To be sacked without an investigation would be unfair and not following due process, but to be suspended while investigations are ongoing is standard procedure.
Multiple allegations? I thought there was one allegation that has been supported by multiple witnesses.
I'm no fan of China and despise President Xi but skipping a person's name isn't pathetic.
It presumably wouldn't have been a problem with Chinese names if we'd used some sort of equivalent system from the Chinese language (though of course they don't have an alphabet in the same way, but I'm sure you could find something), and then it might have been that one of the names in their sequence happened to sound a bit like a Western name, like "Joe", perhaps, and so out of politeness that might then have been skipped.
Exactly.
There's a lot of things China and the WHO have done wrong in this pandemic, and more generally too for China . . . but skipping a person's name is not one of them.
Expecting to have a Xi variant is as immature and childish as calling something the Boris variant.
It was called the Johnson variant, AIR. Didn't take off. Or rather it did but it didn't, if you see what I mean.
Mr. Roger, someone holding a political opinion that isn't yours is not sufficient grounds for blacklisting them.
Mr. Quincel, I did check Betfair for said market and it wasn't up.
One of the reasons I opted for Ladbrokes for most of my F1 betting was that it had more betting options than some other sites.
Even if that political opinion includes a distaste for Pakistanis?
Yes, I think so. I remember the Berufsverbot era when leftist people like me were banned from all kinds of non-political professions in Germany, and it seemed to me fundamentally unfair - why shouldn't I be able to drive a train or deliver post just because I favoured taxing the rich more heavily or nationalising the utilities? It's a slippery slope if we start banning people from non-political jobs because of their opinions, if they're legal (NB inciting to hatred is not legal, so a cricketer who supported a race riot should of course be banned).
I'd favour cricket clubs saying that their players shouldn't indulge in public behaviour which brought the club into disrepute, or harrass players on any grounds whatsoever. But if he wants to admire Trump and vote for a right-wing party privately, I don't think it's any of the club's business.
That such things even need to be said, is a sad reflection on the current state of society.
Of course political opinions shouldn’t stop anyone from getting a job.
The issue is finding the boundary.
In motivated hands, a "reputational damage" policy becomes applied politically.
The problem is in trying to apply an absolute yes/no legal framework to an issue that necessarily involves degrees of opinion. The issue is less to do with the facts of the case as with people's opinion about those facts. You can't easily reach definitive judgments on that.
It’s a fluid situation with inspections, counting fences to still see if they have enough, The Great British Weather has cancelled Bangor cards, but it looks like everything else will, touch wood, go ahead?
Glen Forsa has come in to favourite as Stodge said it would with Stodge already on it before the movement.
I love the flat - it's in my top 5 fav sports - but I've never been able to get into the jumps anything like as much.
As Topping pointed out last week, what I said would be hurdle winners treated the fences as though it was a bumper and ran straight through them!
Neither a confidence building look or good finish Lols
It’s a fluid situation with inspections, counting fences to still see if they have enough, The Great British Weather has cancelled Bangor cards, but it looks like everything else will, touch wood, go ahead?
Glen Forsa has come in to favourite as Stodge said it would with Stodge already on it before the movement.
I love the flat - it's in my top 5 fav sports - but I've never been able to get into the jumps anything like as much.
Although I do get excited watching all races with skin to win in it, I also enjoy seeing all the TV coverage of courses on race day and how the coverage gives me feelings of being there. Do you know what I mean? I love this time of year and know now I should have set up more trips. My friend went out to the pub with friends to watch the rugby last week. They know to leave me to my thing Saturday afternoons.
I have been on better runs than this though closest to winner was two seconds last Saturday.
Mr. Thompson, must disagree. The kowtowing of the WHO made the earliest stages of this pandemic worse than they needed to be.
The kowtowing early on, on serious issues, was a serious problem.
But naming a variant with a person's names is just a gratuitous and unnecessary insult.
My first car was a second-hand vehicle with a J reg plate back when letters were used. From memory the J reg plate series should have been the I reg plate series going alphabetically but I reg was skipped because of the risk that I could be confused for 1.
When there's a risk of confusion its standard procedure to skip that letter on the alphabet and move to the next one. Nothing original or funny business there, to not skip a leaders name would just be offensive for no good reason.
Just being reading about Michael Vaughan. There's always more to these stories than meets the eye. The BBC treatment of him sounded harsh. A few ambiguous words on a cricket field doesn't sound like grounds to destroy someone's career.
After a small amount of investigation it turns out he's an avid Trump supporter. Why would someone who wasn't a racist misogynist climate change denying Brexiteer be a Trump fan? It's not because he's lowering the tax threshold in Yorkshire.....
The big question is why did the BBC emlploy such a person in the first place
Still claiming that 74 million Americans are racists misogynists?
No but -
100 Trumpsters in the kitchen. 100 random other people in the bathroom.
You surely don't deny there'll be tons more racists in the kitchen than the bathroom?
(it's a big roomy property)
Also the kitchen smells of Cool Ranch Doritos and transmission fluid more than the bathroom.
That's before anyone's bladder gets full enough that they need to pump ship.
Look to have escaped the worst of Arwen personally. Next door lost the plaster off the outside walls. Most roads in the village blocked. No trains or Metro at all as of now. Prudhoe Legion is a bomb site. Roof totally off, inside drenched and destroyed. Was utterly wild!!
It’s a fluid situation with inspections, counting fences to still see if they have enough, The Great British Weather has cancelled Bangor cards, but it looks like everything else will, touch wood, go ahead?
Glen Forsa has come in to favourite as Stodge said it would with Stodge already on it before the movement.
I love the flat - it's in my top 5 fav sports - but I've never been able to get into the jumps anything like as much.
Although I do get excited watching all races with skin to win in it, I also enjoy seeing all the TV coverage of courses on race day and how the coverage gives me feelings of being there. Do you know what I mean? I love this time of year and know now I should have set up more trips. My friend went out to the pub with friends to watch the rugby last week. They know to leave me to my thing Saturday afternoons.
I have been on better runs than this though closest to winner was two seconds last Saturday.
Hasn't Vaughan been dropped because he is part of a major and highly controversial cricketing story and so would not be able to provide disinterested coverage and comment on it? His political views are not the reason - as he has been expressing those very clearly and very publicly for a number of years.
And if it is proved that he was entirely innocent of the comments made - or at least there is no supporting evidence that he did make them and so should not have been dropped - do you think it would be reasonable that he should be compensated for lost earnings? Or should the BBC be able to operate without consequences based on their own bias?
There are now three witnesses to the comments. How much evidence is required?
As I think Rafiq has said, it is easy to believe that the comments were made out of ignorance of how they would be received, and with no conscious malicious intent. As a result it is not surprising that Vaughan does not remember making them - why should he? There must be some way of allowing a reconciliation between the two accounts, that allows Vaughan to carry on with a broadcasting career, without having to imply that Rafiq (and the other two witnesses) were lying.
All good points but not really relevant to what I was saying, particularly given I made absolutely no implication that Rafiq was lying, exactly for the reasons you wrote here. The question is whether the BBC, as a public funded body, should be able to operate with impunity in attempting to destroy the careers of people for whatever reason - particularly bearing in mind they have a long record of doing this.
One of the reasons that I post pseudonymously here, rather than with my real identity, is that with a fairly standard employment contract my employer reserves the right to terminate my employment if I make any statement online that they decide reflects badly on them by association. Public reputation matters.
One of the reasons that Vaughan was employed by the BBC is because of his public standing as a former England captain. It's much more relevant to his employment in such a public role that he maintains a good reputation than that I, an obscure nobody, does so. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether having such harsh potential employment consequences for speaking freely on the internet is legitimate, but the BBC are not at all out of line in doing so. Very middle of the road orthodoxy.
This is an area that I genuinely struggle with. I worry about people having their lives ruined for one momentary indiscretion. But then, on the other hand, if people do not want to associate with, or work with, or consume media featuring people who make them uncomfortable, because of said indiscretion, are they not free to exercise that choice? And if the BBC know that some of the players Vaughan might interview would be unhappy about that, or if many listeners might refuse to listen to Vaughan, is that not something they are allowed to react to?
I don't like the idea of creating social outcasts, and of course everyone should worry about social disapproval making them outcasts if it is allowed too free a rein - this was the fate of many to be unjustly ostracised in the past - but social approval/disapproval is one way for us to democratically mediate what we think is an acceptable level of behaviour that avoids involving the state and law in the minutiae of our lives, so I believe it must have a role to play.
The danger is that it gives an incentive to organisations to campaign for boycotts of companies who employ people they don't like. That seems more of a feature of the USA than this country, but it's a strategy employed by both Right and Left over there, and is hardly healthy.
The Vaughan question - like all of these - is a matter of fact and degree.
As we have it, the BBC have acted to punish Vaughan and leave him swinging in the wind when there is only an allegation and a denial, and the allegation from an individual who forgot his own record, before the BBC investigation has even reported back aiui. Is that account wrong?
That seems to me to be the antithsis of due or fair process.
I think the BBC needs to be held to account for that.
There are two separate questions.
1. Is the allegation credible? Two other witnesses who were there have corroborated the account given by Rafiq. For most reasonable people that would be enough.
2. To what extent is the BBC obliged to continue its employment of Vaughan? We have laws to protect people from wrongful dismissal for good reason, but appeals to due process seem a bit overblown at times like this, and it is for circumstances like this that a clause of bringing an employer into disrepute exist - it's a catch-all that allows for you to be fired for bad publicity alone, not necessarily bad conduct. There are some people who are generally in favour of absolute freedom for employers to hire and fire at will - for the good of the economy - but then make very po-faced appeals to due process when someone is fired due to racism.
On 2 it seems unlikely he is an employee seeing as he works for multiple media outlets. They are under no more obligation to use a contractor repeatedly than I am obliged to only use Sainsburys because my last shop was there.
Hasn't Vaughan been dropped because he is part of a major and highly controversial cricketing story and so would not be able to provide disinterested coverage and comment on it? His political views are not the reason - as he has been expressing those very clearly and very publicly for a number of years.
And if it is proved that he was entirely innocent of the comments made - or at least there is no supporting evidence that he did make them and so should not have been dropped - do you think it would be reasonable that he should be compensated for lost earnings? Or should the BBC be able to operate without consequences based on their own bias?
There are now three witnesses to the comments. How much evidence is required?
As I think Rafiq has said, it is easy to believe that the comments were made out of ignorance of how they would be received, and with no conscious malicious intent. As a result it is not surprising that Vaughan does not remember making them - why should he? There must be some way of allowing a reconciliation between the two accounts, that allows Vaughan to carry on with a broadcasting career, without having to imply that Rafiq (and the other two witnesses) were lying.
All good points but not really relevant to what I was saying, particularly given I made absolutely no implication that Rafiq was lying, exactly for the reasons you wrote here. The question is whether the BBC, as a public funded body, should be able to operate with impunity in attempting to destroy the careers of people for whatever reason - particularly bearing in mind they have a long record of doing this.
One of the reasons that I post pseudonymously here, rather than with my real identity, is that with a fairly standard employment contract my employer reserves the right to terminate my employment if I make any statement online that they decide reflects badly on them by association. Public reputation matters.
One of the reasons that Vaughan was employed by the BBC is because of his public standing as a former England captain. It's much more relevant to his employment in such a public role that he maintains a good reputation than that I, an obscure nobody, does so. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether having such harsh potential employment consequences for speaking freely on the internet is legitimate, but the BBC are not at all out of line in doing so. Very middle of the road orthodoxy.
This is an area that I genuinely struggle with. I worry about people having their lives ruined for one momentary indiscretion. But then, on the other hand, if people do not want to associate with, or work with, or consume media featuring people who make them uncomfortable, because of said indiscretion, are they not free to exercise that choice? And if the BBC know that some of the players Vaughan might interview would be unhappy about that, or if many listeners might refuse to listen to Vaughan, is that not something they are allowed to react to?
I don't like the idea of creating social outcasts, and of course everyone should worry about social disapproval making them outcasts if it is allowed too free a rein - this was the fate of many to be unjustly ostracised in the past - but social approval/disapproval is one way for us to democratically mediate what we think is an acceptable level of behaviour that avoids involving the state and law in the minutiae of our lives, so I believe it must have a role to play.
The danger is that it gives an incentive to organisations to campaign for boycotts of companies who employ people they don't like. That seems more of a feature of the USA than this country, but it's a strategy employed by both Right and Left over there, and is hardly healthy.
The Vaughan - like all of these - is a matter of fact and degree.
As we have it, the BBC have acted to punish Vaughan and leave him swinging in the wind when there is only an allegation and a denial, and the allegation from an individual who forgot his own record, before the BBC investigation has even reported back aiui. Is that account wrong?
That seems to me to be the antithsis of due or fair process.
I think the BBC needs to be held to account for that.
Weren't there three allegations, or at least an allegation from three individuals?
I like Vaughn as a cricket pundit but there is a problem imo. There's the 'you lot' comment which 3 people say they heard. Then you have his influential position at YCCC for much of the time in question. Then you have the iffy social media posts. And apparently he's a Trump supporter. This latter isn't relevant except for its impact on my thought process as I assess probabilities, ie if I see iffy comments from somebody I'm less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt (re racism) if I find out they really like Donald Trump. Which is rational of me, I'd suggest. But, still, it's not relevant to BBC and Vaughn, and I do still give him at least a little bit of benefit of the doubt. You do get these bluff types who revel in being unPC and although they're a pet hate of mine they're not necessarily terrible people. As for the Beeb, they say they've chosen not to use him for the Ashes because he's embroiled in a hot cricket story which they'll be having to discuss and cover. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
Just being reading about Michael Vaughan. There's always more to these stories than meets the eye. The BBC treatment of him sounded harsh. A few ambiguous words on a cricket field doesn't sound like grounds to destroy someone's career.
After a small amount of investigation it turns out he's an avid Trump supporter. Why would someone who wasn't a racist misogynist climate change denying Brexiteer be a Trump fan? It's not because he's lowering the tax threshold in Yorkshire.....
The big question is why did the BBC emlploy such a person in the first place
Still claiming that 74 million Americans are racists misogynists?
No but -
100 Trumpsters in the kitchen. 100 random other people in the bathroom.
You surely don't deny there'll be tons more racists in the kitchen than the bathroom?
(it's a big roomy property)
That's obviously Magennis' Bar, with 100 random people in the toilet*, while a bloke gets murdered up front.
When did you join the Shinners?
*71 people actually , including 20 odd women in a men's urinal (no stalls) 4 foot by 3 foot
Hasn't Vaughan been dropped because he is part of a major and highly controversial cricketing story and so would not be able to provide disinterested coverage and comment on it? His political views are not the reason - as he has been expressing those very clearly and very publicly for a number of years.
And if it is proved that he was entirely innocent of the comments made - or at least there is no supporting evidence that he did make them and so should not have been dropped - do you think it would be reasonable that he should be compensated for lost earnings? Or should the BBC be able to operate without consequences based on their own bias?
There are now three witnesses to the comments. How much evidence is required?
As I think Rafiq has said, it is easy to believe that the comments were made out of ignorance of how they would be received, and with no conscious malicious intent. As a result it is not surprising that Vaughan does not remember making them - why should he? There must be some way of allowing a reconciliation between the two accounts, that allows Vaughan to carry on with a broadcasting career, without having to imply that Rafiq (and the other two witnesses) were lying.
All good points but not really relevant to what I was saying, particularly given I made absolutely no implication that Rafiq was lying, exactly for the reasons you wrote here. The question is whether the BBC, as a public funded body, should be able to operate with impunity in attempting to destroy the careers of people for whatever reason - particularly bearing in mind they have a long record of doing this.
One of the reasons that I post pseudonymously here, rather than with my real identity, is that with a fairly standard employment contract my employer reserves the right to terminate my employment if I make any statement online that they decide reflects badly on them by association. Public reputation matters.
One of the reasons that Vaughan was employed by the BBC is because of his public standing as a former England captain. It's much more relevant to his employment in such a public role that he maintains a good reputation than that I, an obscure nobody, does so. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether having such harsh potential employment consequences for speaking freely on the internet is legitimate, but the BBC are not at all out of line in doing so. Very middle of the road orthodoxy.
This is an area that I genuinely struggle with. I worry about people having their lives ruined for one momentary indiscretion. But then, on the other hand, if people do not want to associate with, or work with, or consume media featuring people who make them uncomfortable, because of said indiscretion, are they not free to exercise that choice? And if the BBC know that some of the players Vaughan might interview would be unhappy about that, or if many listeners might refuse to listen to Vaughan, is that not something they are allowed to react to?
I don't like the idea of creating social outcasts, and of course everyone should worry about social disapproval making them outcasts if it is allowed too free a rein - this was the fate of many to be unjustly ostracised in the past - but social approval/disapproval is one way for us to democratically mediate what we think is an acceptable level of behaviour that avoids involving the state and law in the minutiae of our lives, so I believe it must have a role to play.
The danger is that it gives an incentive to organisations to campaign for boycotts of companies who employ people they don't like. That seems more of a feature of the USA than this country, but it's a strategy employed by both Right and Left over there, and is hardly healthy.
The Vaughan question - like all of these - is a matter of fact and degree.
As we have it, the BBC have acted to punish Vaughan and leave him swinging in the wind when there is only an allegation and a denial, and the allegation from an individual who forgot his own record, before the BBC investigation has even reported back aiui. Is that account wrong?
That seems to me to be the antithsis of due or fair process.
I think the BBC needs to be held to account for that.
There are two separate questions.
1. Is the allegation credible? Two other witnesses who were there have corroborated the account given by Rafiq. For most reasonable people that would be enough.
2. To what extent is the BBC obliged to continue its employment of Vaughan? We have laws to protect people from wrongful dismissal for good reason, but appeals to due process seem a bit overblown at times like this, and it is for circumstances like this that a clause of bringing an employer into disrepute exist - it's a catch-all that allows for you to be fired for bad publicity alone, not necessarily bad conduct. There are some people who are generally in favour of absolute freedom for employers to hire and fire at will - for the good of the economy - but then make very po-faced appeals to due process when someone is fired due to racism.
On 2 it seems unlikely he is an employee seeing as he works for multiple media outlets. They are under no more obligation to use a contractor repeatedly than I am obliged to only use Sainsburys because my last shop was there.
The BBC employs very few sports commentators. My good friend has been Chief Correspondent for a medium sized sport for over a decade. Commentary or 2 a week. Isn't an employee.
It’s a fluid situation with inspections, counting fences to still see if they have enough, The Great British Weather has cancelled Bangor cards, but it looks like everything else will, touch wood, go ahead?
Glen Forsa has come in to favourite as Stodge said it would with Stodge already on it before the movement.
I love the flat - it's in my top 5 fav sports - but I've never been able to get into the jumps anything like as much.
Although I do get excited watching all races with skin to win in it, I also enjoy seeing all the TV coverage of courses on race day and how the coverage gives me feelings of being there. Do you know what I mean? I love this time of year and know now I should have set up more trips. My friend went out to the pub with friends to watch the rugby last week. They know to leave me to my thing Saturday afternoons.
I have been on better runs than this though closest to winner was two seconds last Saturday.
I'm no fan of China and despise President Xi but skipping a person's name isn't pathetic.
It presumably wouldn't have been a problem with Chinese names if we'd used some sort of equivalent system from the Chinese language (though of course they don't have an alphabet in the same way, but I'm sure you could find something), and then it might have been that one of the names in their sequence happened to sound a bit like a Western name, like "Joe", perhaps, and so out of politeness that might then have been skipped.
Exactly.
There's a lot of things China and the WHO have done wrong in this pandemic, and more generally too for China . . . but skipping a person's name is not one of them.
Expecting to have a Xi variant is as immature and childish as calling something the Boris variant.
It was called the Johnson variant, AIR. Didn't take off. Or rather it did but it didn't, if you see what I mean.
It was obviously impossible to call it the Xi variant.
The obvious, sensible thing would have been to call it the Winnie-the-Pooh variant.
It’s a fluid situation with inspections, counting fences to still see if they have enough, The Great British Weather has cancelled Bangor cards, but it looks like everything else will, touch wood, go ahead?
Glen Forsa has come in to favourite as Stodge said it would with Stodge already on it before the movement.
I love the flat - it's in my top 5 fav sports - but I've never been able to get into the jumps anything like as much.
I much prefer the jumps. I am against Glen Forsa , I am on Aye Right 14:05 Newcastle., also left it a bit late as in from 7's to 5's now. Always find Newcastle hard to get winners mind you , a bit like Ayr.
I like Vaughn as a cricket pundit but there is a problem imo. There's the 'you lot' comment which 3 people say they heard. Then you have his influential position at YCCC for much of the time in question. Then you have the iffy social media posts. And apparently he's a Trump supporter. This latter isn't relevant except for its impact on my thought process as I assess probabilities, ie if I see iffy comments from somebody I'm less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt (re racism) if I find out they really like Donald Trump. Which is rational of me, I'd suggest. But, still, it's not relevant to BBC and Vaughn, and I do still give him at least a little bit of benefit of the doubt. You do get these bluff types who revel in being unPC and although they're a pet hate of mine they're not necessarily terrible people. As for the Beeb, they say they've chosen not to use him for the Ashes because he's embroiled in a hot cricket story which they'll be having to discuss and cover. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
I'm not at all interested in the Trump stuff myself, that's never come across in his punditry, but I completely agree on the last part.
They can't have a "Vaughn's on, don't mention the racism" policy, when they'll clearly be talking a lot about the racism.
I think it's quite tough on him, but he is embroiled in it. I was encouraged hearing what Panesar said about him. I'd prefer him to be a bit of a dick sometimes than a nasty racist.
He was a bit of a dick the one time I met him just before the 2005 Ashes.
I'm no fan of China and despise President Xi but skipping a person's name isn't pathetic.
It presumably wouldn't have been a problem with Chinese names if we'd used some sort of equivalent system from the Chinese language (though of course they don't have an alphabet in the same way, but I'm sure you could find something), and then it might have been that one of the names in their sequence happened to sound a bit like a Western name, like "Joe", perhaps, and so out of politeness that might then have been skipped.
Exactly.
There's a lot of things China and the WHO have done wrong in this pandemic, and more generally too for China . . . but skipping a person's name is not one of them.
Expecting to have a Xi variant is as immature and childish as calling something the Boris variant.
It was called the Johnson variant, AIR. Didn't take off. Or rather it did but it didn't, if you see what I mean.
It was obviously impossible to call it the Xi variant.
The obvious, sensible thing would have been to call it the Winnie-the-Pooh variant.
I take it you are not planning any trips to Shanghai in the next few decades?
I'm no fan of China and despise President Xi but skipping a person's name isn't pathetic.
It presumably wouldn't have been a problem with Chinese names if we'd used some sort of equivalent system from the Chinese language (though of course they don't have an alphabet in the same way, but I'm sure you could find something), and then it might have been that one of the names in their sequence happened to sound a bit like a Western name, like "Joe", perhaps, and so out of politeness that might then have been skipped.
Exactly.
There's a lot of things China and the WHO have done wrong in this pandemic, and more generally too for China . . . but skipping a person's name is not one of them.
Expecting to have a Xi variant is as immature and childish as calling something the Boris variant.
It was called the Johnson variant, AIR. Didn't take off. Or rather it did but it didn't, if you see what I mean.
It was obviously impossible to call it the Xi variant.
The obvious, sensible thing would have been to call it the Winnie-the-Pooh variant.
I take it you are not planning any trips to Shanghai in the next few decades?
I like Vaughn as a cricket pundit but there is a problem imo. There's the 'you lot' comment which 3 people say they heard. Then you have his influential position at YCCC for much of the time in question. Then you have the iffy social media posts. And apparently he's a Trump supporter. This latter isn't relevant except for its impact on my thought process as I assess probabilities, ie if I see iffy comments from somebody I'm less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt (re racism) if I find out they really like Donald Trump. Which is rational of me, I'd suggest. But, still, it's not relevant to BBC and Vaughn, and I do still give him at least a little bit of benefit of the doubt. You do get these bluff types who revel in being unPC and although they're a pet hate of mine they're not necessarily terrible people. As for the Beeb, they say they've chosen not to use him for the Ashes because he's embroiled in a hot cricket story which they'll be having to discuss and cover. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
I'm not at all interested in the Trump stuff myself, that's never come across in his punditry, but I completely agree on the last part.
They can't have a "Vaughn's on, don't mention the racism" policy, when they'll clearly be talking a lot about the racism.
I think it's quite tough on him, but he is embroiled in it. I was encouraged hearing what Panesar said about him. I'd prefer him to be a bit of a dick sometimes than a nasty racist.
He was a bit of a dick the one time I met him just before the 2005 Ashes.
Panesar article also says Vaughan will be working on the Ashes for Fox Sports which shows this end of his career stuff is just hyperbole.
Just being reading about Michael Vaughan. There's always more to these stories than meets the eye. The BBC treatment of him sounded harsh. A few ambiguous words on a cricket field doesn't sound like grounds to destroy someone's career.
After a small amount of investigation it turns out he's an avid Trump supporter. Why would someone who wasn't a racist misogynist climate change denying Brexiteer be a Trump fan? It's not because he's lowering the tax threshold in Yorkshire.....
The big question is why did the BBC emlploy such a person in the first place
Still claiming that 74 million Americans are racists misogynists?
No but -
100 Trumpsters in the kitchen. 100 random other people in the bathroom.
You surely don't deny there'll be tons more racists in the kitchen than the bathroom?
(it's a big roomy property)
That's obviously Magennis' Bar, with 100 random people in the toilet*, while a bloke gets murdered up front.
When did you join the Shinners?
*71 people actually , including 20 odd women in a men's urinal (no stalls) 4 foot by 3 foot
Well I don't see any clear link to this, Malmesbury, I'm afraid. You've gone off piste again.
I might skip the 'traditional' oysters (from when they were 'traditionally' cheap!) though..
The problem with making Lancashire hotpot with kidneys is that lamb kidneys need much less cooking than scrag end, so they end up tough. Cumberland hotpot, with black pudding, is much nice IMO.
It’s a fluid situation with inspections, counting fences to still see if they have enough, The Great British Weather has cancelled Bangor cards, but it looks like everything else will, touch wood, go ahead?
Glen Forsa has come in to favourite as Stodge said it would with Stodge already on it before the movement.
I love the flat - it's in my top 5 fav sports - but I've never been able to get into the jumps anything like as much.
I much prefer the jumps. I am against Glen Forsa , I am on Aye Right 14:05 Newcastle., also left it a bit late as in from 7's to 5's now. Always find Newcastle hard to get winners mind you , a bit like Ayr.
Right, I'll watch with interest. Flat v jumps, part of it is that I really love the sight of a glistening thoroughbred powering through to win at the end. With a jump race, esp a steeplechase, they often come home looking knackered, which I don't find quite as thrilling.
Financially, I'm planning my career on the basis that I could be dismissed - or find my position untenable - in my career at any point in the next 20 years. I am therefore putting much more into S&S ISAs and deleveraging on debt than I otherwise would do if I were more confident.
Why? I think the risk unlikely but I don't always express myself in the optimal way using the correct terminology and I can occasionally be impulsive. Because I can't be sure of which way the wind will blow it's a risk I'm now actively looking to mitigate, just as I do with critical illness or life assurance, so if I do have to switch career or take a low-lying job in future it won't adversely affect me or my family too much.
I might skip the 'traditional' oysters (from when they were 'traditionally' cheap!) though..
The problem with making Lancashire hotpot with kidneys is that lamb kidneys need much less cooking than scrag end, so they end up tough. Cumberland hotpot, with black pudding, is much nice IMO.
I've found that and now cook the lamb a while before making the hotpot up. Last time I cooked it, I slow cooked some lamb shanks first and used that meat. Worked really well.
A busy morning clearing up downed tree hell. Managed to attract a local guardian angel with a chainsaw and knowledge of trees to slice the buggers to pieces. Next door can now access the outside world, but we're going to need to get tree surgeons back in. One of two that fell tore out of the roots, the other two trunks off it aren't secure enough so the whole thing will need to come out.
It’s a fluid situation with inspections, counting fences to still see if they have enough, The Great British Weather has cancelled Bangor cards, but it looks like everything else will, touch wood, go ahead?
Glen Forsa has come in to favourite as Stodge said it would with Stodge already on it before the movement.
I love the flat - it's in my top 5 fav sports - but I've never been able to get into the jumps anything like as much.
Although I do get excited watching all races with skin to win in it, I also enjoy seeing all the TV coverage of courses on race day and how the coverage gives me feelings of being there. Do you know what I mean? I love this time of year and know now I should have set up more trips. My friend went out to the pub with friends to watch the rugby last week. They know to leave me to my thing Saturday afternoons.
I have been on better runs than this though closest to winner was two seconds last Saturday.
EDITED - Newcastle cards definitely on
Yes, I get that about jump racing. Crisp day, Barbour on, you know the horses because they have long careers. It's closer to the fans, in a sense more authentic than the flat. But me, I'd rather be in the Spring sun at Newmarket, watching the debut of some 2 yo bought for millions by somebody with too much money. Also the flat season has a richer narrative than the jumps. The jumps is dominated by Cheltenham, it's all about the Festival apart from some standalones like the KG on Boxing Day and the Grand Nat.
Shocking damage in my neighbourhood from the storm. A neighbours wheely bin was blown over. The bins were emptied on Wednesday, so its shocking it was still out.
It’s a fluid situation with inspections, counting fences to still see if they have enough, The Great British Weather has cancelled Bangor cards, but it looks like everything else will, touch wood, go ahead?
Glen Forsa has come in to favourite as Stodge said it would with Stodge already on it before the movement.
I love the flat - it's in my top 5 fav sports - but I've never been able to get into the jumps anything like as much.
I much prefer the jumps. I am against Glen Forsa , I am on Aye Right 14:05 Newcastle., also left it a bit late as in from 7's to 5's now. Always find Newcastle hard to get winners mind you , a bit like Ayr.
Right, I'll watch with interest. Flat v jumps, part of it is that I really love the sight of a glistening thoroughbred powering through to win at the end. With a jump race, esp a steeplechase, they often come home looking knackered, which I don't find quite as thrilling.
I am on Glen as well as my own three “ suggestions” from yesterday, in lucky 15. Glen Forsa, GLORY AND FORTUNE, Soaring Glory, Not So Sleepy. I did look carefully at Glens history wondering how it will rediscover it’s lost mojo today. Also looked carefully at Stodges other suggestion DARAKAH before going with Glen.
A busy morning clearing up downed tree hell. Managed to attract a local guardian angel with a chainsaw and knowledge of trees to slice the buggers to pieces. Next door can now access the outside world, but we're going to need to get tree surgeons back in. One of two that fell tore out of the roots, the other two trunks off it aren't secure enough so the whole thing will need to come out.
At least I won't want for firewood...
Scottish weather!
We escaped the severe weather. A bit of snow on the ground and a fallen over bird table is all we woke up to. The precipitation is tracking to the east of us so far today.
It’s a fluid situation with inspections, counting fences to still see if they have enough, The Great British Weather has cancelled Bangor cards, but it looks like everything else will, touch wood, go ahead?
Glen Forsa has come in to favourite as Stodge said it would with Stodge already on it before the movement.
I love the flat - it's in my top 5 fav sports - but I've never been able to get into the jumps anything like as much.
I much prefer the jumps. I am against Glen Forsa , I am on Aye Right 14:05 Newcastle., also left it a bit late as in from 7's to 5's now. Always find Newcastle hard to get winners mind you , a bit like Ayr.
Right, I'll watch with interest. Flat v jumps, part of it is that I really love the sight of a glistening thoroughbred powering through to win at the end. With a jump race, esp a steeplechase, they often come home looking knackered, which I don't find quite as thrilling.
Yes have to say I like all horse racing , on flat I prefer the longer distance races over a mile
I might skip the 'traditional' oysters (from when they were 'traditionally' cheap!) though..
The problem with making Lancashire hotpot with kidneys is that lamb kidneys need much less cooking than scrag end, so they end up tough. Cumberland hotpot, with black pudding, is much nice IMO.
I've found that and now cook the lamb a while before making the hotpot up. Last time I cooked it, I slow cooked some lamb shanks first and used that meat. Worked really well.
It’s a fluid situation with inspections, counting fences to still see if they have enough, The Great British Weather has cancelled Bangor cards, but it looks like everything else will, touch wood, go ahead?
Glen Forsa has come in to favourite as Stodge said it would with Stodge already on it before the movement.
I love the flat - it's in my top 5 fav sports - but I've never been able to get into the jumps anything like as much.
Although I do get excited watching all races with skin to win in it, I also enjoy seeing all the TV coverage of courses on race day and how the coverage gives me feelings of being there. Do you know what I mean? I love this time of year and know now I should have set up more trips. My friend went out to the pub with friends to watch the rugby last week. They know to leave me to my thing Saturday afternoons.
I have been on better runs than this though closest to winner was two seconds last Saturday.
EDITED - Newcastle cards definitely on
Yes, I get that about jump racing. Crisp day, Barbour on, you know the horses because they have long careers. It's closer to the fans, in a sense more authentic than the flat. But me, I'd rather be in the Spring sun at Newmarket, watching the debut of some 2 yo bought for millions by somebody with too much money. Also the flat season has a richer narrative than the jumps. The jumps is dominated by Cheltenham, it's all about the Festival apart from some standalones like the KG on Boxing Day and the Grand Nat.
I wonder if we can agree on it’s ALL good regardless which time of year. 🙂
The winter season isn’t just dominated by a “few” set pieces though, there’s strong races going on all the time not least with the same big name protagonists showing their claims for the big clashes.
In fact I have had some success trying to pick out fast front runners on hurdles who should stay the distance, provided they don’t run right through the hurdle. I’m not sure about jumps, though I try hard it most likely goes wrong. Especially when winter kicks in. And in very big races, like King George and Gold Cup, much of all the form we have seen before from the horses can just disappear. Before I was born there was a 100-1 winner of the Gold Cup, that started in point to point and didn’t win many National Hunt races in his career
With hurdles I think it’s different because, especially if there is pacesetter for a true run race you can sort of know who should stay on for that distance at pace and less that should go wrong. The only metaphor I can think of, in the Olympics middle distance races the people clocking fastest time all year you would make favourites for medals from true run race, but then it’s a slow tactical race makes it anything can happen
I might skip the 'traditional' oysters (from when they were 'traditionally' cheap!) though..
The problem with making Lancashire hotpot with kidneys is that lamb kidneys need much less cooking than scrag end, so they end up tough. Cumberland hotpot, with black pudding, is much nice IMO.
I've found that and now cook the lamb a while before making the hotpot up. Last time I cooked it, I slow cooked some lamb shanks first and used that meat. Worked really well.
I could not eat kidneys.
Not sure if this will change your mind?
'Leopold Bloom ate with relish the inner organs of beasts and fowls. He liked thick giblet soup, nutty gizzards, a stuffed roast heart, liverslices fried with crustcrumbs, fried hencods' roes. But most of all, he liked grilled mutton kidneys which gave to his palate a fine tang of faintly scented urine.'
Financially, I'm planning my career on the basis that I could be dismissed - or find my position untenable - in my career at any point in the next 20 years. I am therefore putting much more into S&S ISAs and deleveraging on debt than I otherwise would do if I were more confident.
Why? I think the risk unlikely but I don't always express myself in the optimal way using the correct terminology and I can occasionally be impulsive. Because I can't be sure of which way the wind will blow it's a risk I'm now actively looking to mitigate, just as I do with critical illness or life assurance, so if I do have to switch career or take a low-lying job in future it won't adversely affect me or my family too much.
I'm no fan of China and despise President Xi but skipping a person's name isn't pathetic.
It presumably wouldn't have been a problem with Chinese names if we'd used some sort of equivalent system from the Chinese language (though of course they don't have an alphabet in the same way, but I'm sure you could find something), and then it might have been that one of the names in their sequence happened to sound a bit like a Western name, like "Joe", perhaps, and so out of politeness that might then have been skipped.
Exactly.
There's a lot of things China and the WHO have done wrong in this pandemic, and more generally too for China . . . but skipping a person's name is not one of them.
Expecting to have a Xi variant is as immature and childish as calling something the Boris variant.
It was called the Johnson variant, AIR. Didn't take off. Or rather it did but it didn't, if you see what I mean.
It was obviously impossible to call it the Xi variant.
The obvious, sensible thing would have been to call it the Winnie-the-Pooh variant.
I take it you are not planning any trips to Shanghai in the next few decades?
Roku’s Basilisk with Xi in the role of Basilisk
And I don't think you will need to go to Shanghai. Shanghai comes to you...
Financially, I'm planning my career on the basis that I could be dismissed - or find my position untenable - in my career at any point in the next 20 years. I am therefore putting much more into S&S ISAs and deleveraging on debt than I otherwise would do if I were more confident.
Why? I think the risk unlikely but I don't always express myself in the optimal way using the correct terminology and I can occasionally be impulsive. Because I can't be sure of which way the wind will blow it's a risk I'm now actively looking to mitigate, just as I do with critical illness or life assurance, so if I do have to switch career or take a low-lying job in future it won't adversely affect me or my family too much.
Except they also skipped nu, because it's confusing/ a source of cheap puns (no nus is god nus). Xi is hard to pronounce, and easy for the classically minded to read as eleven.
I might skip the 'traditional' oysters (from when they were 'traditionally' cheap!) though..
The problem with making Lancashire hotpot with kidneys is that lamb kidneys need much less cooking than scrag end, so they end up tough. Cumberland hotpot, with black pudding, is much nice IMO.
I've found that and now cook the lamb a while before making the hotpot up. Last time I cooked it, I slow cooked some lamb shanks first and used that meat. Worked really well.
I could not eat kidneys.
Not sure if this will change your mind?
'Leopold Bloom ate with relish the inner organs of beasts and fowls. He liked thick giblet soup, nutty gizzards, a stuffed roast heart, liverslices fried with crustcrumbs, fried hencods' roes. But most of all, he liked grilled mutton kidneys which gave to his palate a fine tang of faintly scented urine.'
For thems who don't know 'Humble Pie' which has now become synonymous with abject apology was originally an Elizabethan Christmas treat of pastry filled with offal.
I might skip the 'traditional' oysters (from when they were 'traditionally' cheap!) though..
The problem with making Lancashire hotpot with kidneys is that lamb kidneys need much less cooking than scrag end, so they end up tough. Cumberland hotpot, with black pudding, is much nice IMO.
I've found that and now cook the lamb a while before making the hotpot up. Last time I cooked it, I slow cooked some lamb shanks first and used that meat. Worked really well.
I could not eat kidneys.
I remember as a kid that a steak and kidney pie was mainly made up of various bit of offal with the odd token bit of beef to justify the name. Of the various dubious bits you found the kidneys were always the worst.
Hasn't Vaughan been dropped because he is part of a major and highly controversial cricketing story and so would not be able to provide disinterested coverage and comment on it? His political views are not the reason - as he has been expressing those very clearly and very publicly for a number of years.
And if it is proved that he was entirely innocent of the comments made - or at least there is no supporting evidence that he did make them and so should not have been dropped - do you think it would be reasonable that he should be compensated for lost earnings? Or should the BBC be able to operate without consequences based on their own bias?
There are now three witnesses to the comments. How much evidence is required?
As I think Rafiq has said, it is easy to believe that the comments were made out of ignorance of how they would be received, and with no conscious malicious intent. As a result it is not surprising that Vaughan does not remember making them - why should he? There must be some way of allowing a reconciliation between the two accounts, that allows Vaughan to carry on with a broadcasting career, without having to imply that Rafiq (and the other two witnesses) were lying.
All good points but not really relevant to what I was saying, particularly given I made absolutely no implication that Rafiq was lying, exactly for the reasons you wrote here. The question is whether the BBC, as a public funded body, should be able to operate with impunity in attempting to destroy the careers of people for whatever reason - particularly bearing in mind they have a long record of doing this.
One of the reasons that I post pseudonymously here, rather than with my real identity, is that with a fairly standard employment contract my employer reserves the right to terminate my employment if I make any statement online that they decide reflects badly on them by association. Public reputation matters.
One of the reasons that Vaughan was employed by the BBC is because of his public standing as a former England captain. It's much more relevant to his employment in such a public role that he maintains a good reputation than that I, an obscure nobody, does so. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether having such harsh potential employment consequences for speaking freely on the internet is legitimate, but the BBC are not at all out of line in doing so. Very middle of the road orthodoxy.
This is an area that I genuinely struggle with. I worry about people having their lives ruined for one momentary indiscretion. But then, on the other hand, if people do not want to associate with, or work with, or consume media featuring people who make them uncomfortable, because of said indiscretion, are they not free to exercise that choice? And if the BBC know that some of the players Vaughan might interview would be unhappy about that, or if many listeners might refuse to listen to Vaughan, is that not something they are allowed to react to?
I don't like the idea of creating social outcasts, and of course everyone should worry about social disapproval making them outcasts if it is allowed too free a rein - this was the fate of many to be unjustly ostracised in the past - but social approval/disapproval is one way for us to democratically mediate what we think is an acceptable level of behaviour that avoids involving the state and law in the minutiae of our lives, so I believe it must have a role to play.
The danger is that it gives an incentive to organisations to campaign for boycotts of companies who employ people they don't like. That seems more of a feature of the USA than this country, but it's a strategy employed by both Right and Left over there, and is hardly healthy.
The Vaughan question - like all of these - is a matter of fact and degree.
As we have it, the BBC have acted to punish Vaughan and leave him swinging in the wind when there is only an allegation and a denial, and the allegation from an individual who forgot his own record, before the BBC investigation has even reported back aiui. Is that account wrong?
That seems to me to be the antithsis of due or fair process.
I think the BBC needs to be held to account for that.
There are two separate questions.
1. Is the allegation credible? Two other witnesses who were there have corroborated the account given by Rafiq. For most reasonable people that would be enough.
2. To what extent is the BBC obliged to continue its employment of Vaughan? We have laws to protect people from wrongful dismissal for good reason, but appeals to due process seem a bit overblown at times like this, and it is for circumstances like this that a clause of bringing an employer into disrepute exist - it's a catch-all that allows for you to be fired for bad publicity alone, not necessarily bad conduct. There are some people who are generally in favour of absolute freedom for employers to hire and fire at will - for the good of the economy - but then make very po-faced appeals to due process when someone is fired due to racism.
On the second point, TMS have abruptly dropped commentators in the past, so I doubt there's much security of employment in the role. Effectively I think they might be making a decision to re-employ him, were he to be commenting for this series ?
Financially, I'm planning my career on the basis that I could be dismissed - or find my position untenable - in my career at any point in the next 20 years. I am therefore putting much more into S&S ISAs and deleveraging on debt than I otherwise would do if I were more confident.
Why? I think the risk unlikely but I don't always express myself in the optimal way using the correct terminology and I can occasionally be impulsive. Because I can't be sure of which way the wind will blow it's a risk I'm now actively looking to mitigate, just as I do with critical illness or life assurance, so if I do have to switch career or take a low-lying job in future it won't adversely affect me or my family too much.
Good to see you back CR!
Agreed. (& I hope that was a fat fingered rather than malicious 'off topic' flag.)
Financially, I'm planning my career on the basis that I could be dismissed - or find my position untenable - in my career at any point in the next 20 years. I am therefore putting much more into S&S ISAs and deleveraging on debt than I otherwise would do if I were more confident.
Why? I think the risk unlikely but I don't always express myself in the optimal way using the correct terminology and I can occasionally be impulsive. Because I can't be sure of which way the wind will blow it's a risk I'm now actively looking to mitigate, just as I do with critical illness or life assurance, so if I do have to switch career or take a low-lying job in future it won't adversely affect me or my family too much.
Having the ability to tell those you work for to piss off if you feel strongly enough about it is surely one of the greatest luxuries you can give yourself. I have always suspected that it is one of the major advantages that the progeny of the well off have and helps them on the road to success. They can afford to take a risk or stand on principle in a way that does them no harm in the long run whilst the less well off can't.
On topic, The Yorkshire Party should try to get Sean Bean to stand as their candidate. A local lad, and his 'Do it for Yorkshire!' catch phrase from the tea adverts would be a good election slogan.
Financially, I'm planning my career on the basis that I could be dismissed - or find my position untenable - in my career at any point in the next 20 years. I am therefore putting much more into S&S ISAs and deleveraging on debt than I otherwise would do if I were more confident.
Why? I think the risk unlikely but I don't always express myself in the optimal way using the correct terminology and I can occasionally be impulsive. Because I can't be sure of which way the wind will blow it's a risk I'm now actively looking to mitigate, just as I do with critical illness or life assurance, so if I do have to switch career or take a low-lying job in future it won't adversely affect me or my family too much.
Having the ability to tell those you work for to piss off if you feel strongly enough about it is surely one of the greatest luxuries you can give yourself. I have always suspected that it is one of the major advantages that the progeny of the well off have and helps them on the road to success. They can afford to take a risk or stand on principle in a way that does them no harm in the long run whilst the less well off can't.
E.g. one Darwin C. No need to keep employers* happy or apply for research grants.
*Often including, or being, ministers of religion. E.g. Oxbridge professors, Scottish university profs dependent on town council oversight committees, etc.
But CR's point is an excellent and serious one. I had to do something similar as I realised I might have to jack in my job early. Didn't happen in the end, but the ability to do so was a great comfort.
I'm no fan of China and despise President Xi but skipping a person's name isn't pathetic.
For storms, often causing loss of life, we use nothing but people's names.
Generic names deliberately not associated with anyone.
A bit different to naming a Covid variant with the President of China's name.
I doubt for some reason storm Arwen is going to be followed with Boris. I certainly don't expect a hurricane Joe any time soon.
You do feel sorry for people who get their names appropriated, for one bad reason or another. Ask anyone called Alexa, or Karen.
Or X Æ A-Xii.
Its poor Noonoo I feel sorry for at the moment. A harmless hoover whose name is being simultaneously appropriated by a lethal virus and @Leon's ex's naughty bits. Harsh.
I'm no fan of China and despise President Xi but skipping a person's name isn't pathetic.
For storms, often causing loss of life, we use nothing but people's names.
Generic names deliberately not associated with anyone.
A bit different to naming a Covid variant with the President of China's name.
I doubt for some reason storm Arwen is going to be followed with Boris. I certainly don't expect a hurricane Joe any time soon.
You do feel sorry for people who get their names appropriated, for one bad reason or another. Ask anyone called Alexa, or Karen.
Or X Æ A-Xii.
Its poor Noonoo I feel sorry for at the moment. A harmless hoover whose name is being simultaneously appropriated by a lethal virus and @Leon's ex's naughty bits. Harsh.
PB pedantry: was it not rather Leon's ex who appropriated the name for his nether bits? But one might be wrong. One did not look more closely when he came out with that snippet of data.
A busy morning clearing up downed tree hell. Managed to attract a local guardian angel with a chainsaw and knowledge of trees to slice the buggers to pieces. Next door can now access the outside world, but we're going to need to get tree surgeons back in. One of two that fell tore out of the roots, the other two trunks off it aren't secure enough so the whole thing will need to come out.
At least I won't want for firewood...
Staying near Grasmere for the weekend; quite a few trees down last night here, too. All cleared from the roads by lunchtime.
Financially, I'm planning my career on the basis that I could be dismissed - or find my position untenable - in my career at any point in the next 20 years. I am therefore putting much more into S&S ISAs and deleveraging on debt than I otherwise would do if I were more confident.
Why? I think the risk unlikely but I don't always express myself in the optimal way using the correct terminology and I can occasionally be impulsive. Because I can't be sure of which way the wind will blow it's a risk I'm now actively looking to mitigate, just as I do with critical illness or life assurance, so if I do have to switch career or take a low-lying job in future it won't adversely affect me or my family too much.
Having the ability to tell those you work for to piss off if you feel strongly enough about it is surely one of the greatest luxuries you can give yourself. I have always suspected that it is one of the major advantages that the progeny of the well off have and helps them on the road to success. They can afford to take a risk or stand on principle in a way that does them no harm in the long run whilst the less well off can't.
Not sure if BJ counts as the progeny of the well off, but is he the exception that proves the stand on principle rule?
Financially, I'm planning my career on the basis that I could be dismissed - or find my position untenable - in my career at any point in the next 20 years. I am therefore putting much more into S&S ISAs and deleveraging on debt than I otherwise would do if I were more confident.
Why? I think the risk unlikely but I don't always express myself in the optimal way using the correct terminology and I can occasionally be impulsive. Because I can't be sure of which way the wind will blow it's a risk I'm now actively looking to mitigate, just as I do with critical illness or life assurance, so if I do have to switch career or take a low-lying job in future it won't adversely affect me or my family too much.
Good to see you back CR!
Agreed. (& I hope that was a fat fingered rather than malicious 'off topic' flag.)
One perhaps needs a 'Did you really mean that?' check with the OT button. Like the 'commiserate' button I suggested recently, it would help the civility on PB.
I'm no fan of China and despise President Xi but skipping a person's name isn't pathetic.
For storms, often causing loss of life, we use nothing but people's names.
Generic names deliberately not associated with anyone.
A bit different to naming a Covid variant with the President of China's name.
I doubt for some reason storm Arwen is going to be followed with Boris. I certainly don't expect a hurricane Joe any time soon.
You do feel sorry for people who get their names appropriated, for one bad reason or another. Ask anyone called Alexa, or Karen.
Or X Æ A-Xii.
Its poor Noonoo I feel sorry for at the moment. A harmless hoover whose name is being simultaneously appropriated by a lethal virus and @Leon's ex's naughty bits. Harsh.
PB pedantry: was it not rather Leon's ex who appropriated the name for his nether bits? But one might be wrong. One did not look more closely when he came out with that snippet of data.
Nunu Nunu: noun, male private part, penis. Etimolgy: nunu is a word for penis or sex organ of both sexes, came from Bengali/Bangla language, especially Bangladeshi Bengali via Bangladeshi immigrants/diaspora of the UK and the USA.
It’s a fluid situation with inspections, counting fences to still see if they have enough, The Great British Weather has cancelled Bangor cards, but it looks like everything else will, touch wood, go ahead?
Glen Forsa has come in to favourite as Stodge said it would with Stodge already on it before the movement.
I love the flat - it's in my top 5 fav sports - but I've never been able to get into the jumps anything like as much.
Although I do get excited watching all races with skin to win in it, I also enjoy seeing all the TV coverage of courses on race day and how the coverage gives me feelings of being there. Do you know what I mean? I love this time of year and know now I should have set up more trips. My friend went out to the pub with friends to watch the rugby last week. They know to leave me to my thing Saturday afternoons.
I have been on better runs than this though closest to winner was two seconds last Saturday.
EDITED - Newcastle cards definitely on
Yes, I get that about jump racing. Crisp day, Barbour on, you know the horses because they have long careers. It's closer to the fans, in a sense more authentic than the flat. But me, I'd rather be in the Spring sun at Newmarket, watching the debut of some 2 yo bought for millions by somebody with too much money. Also the flat season has a richer narrative than the jumps. The jumps is dominated by Cheltenham, it's all about the Festival apart from some standalones like the KG on Boxing Day and the Grand Nat.
Well, it isn't crisp at Doncaster races today.
Sleet blowing hard across the finishing straight at times. About 1/2 in of sleety rain overnight, so going won't be terribly good, even if it does drain pretty well being on sand.
I'm no fan of China and despise President Xi but skipping a person's name isn't pathetic.
For storms, often causing loss of life, we use nothing but people's names.
Generic names deliberately not associated with anyone.
A bit different to naming a Covid variant with the President of China's name.
I doubt for some reason storm Arwen is going to be followed with Boris. I certainly don't expect a hurricane Joe any time soon.
You do feel sorry for people who get their names appropriated, for one bad reason or another. Ask anyone called Alexa, or Karen.
Or X Æ A-Xii.
Its poor Noonoo I feel sorry for at the moment. A harmless hoover whose name is being simultaneously appropriated by a lethal virus and @Leon's ex's naughty bits. Harsh.
PB pedantry: was it not rather Leon's ex who appropriated the name for his nether bits? But one might be wrong. One did not look more closely when he came out with that snippet of data.
No, David was right. Some unkind soul suggested Tinky Winky for the latter.
Financially, I'm planning my career on the basis that I could be dismissed - or find my position untenable - in my career at any point in the next 20 years. I am therefore putting much more into S&S ISAs and deleveraging on debt than I otherwise would do if I were more confident.
Why? I think the risk unlikely but I don't always express myself in the optimal way using the correct terminology and I can occasionally be impulsive. Because I can't be sure of which way the wind will blow it's a risk I'm now actively looking to mitigate, just as I do with critical illness or life assurance, so if I do have to switch career or take a low-lying job in future it won't adversely affect me or my family too much.
Having the ability to tell those you work for to piss off if you feel strongly enough about it is surely one of the greatest luxuries you can give yourself. I have always suspected that it is one of the major advantages that the progeny of the well off have and helps them on the road to success. They can afford to take a risk or stand on principle in a way that does them no harm in the long run whilst the less well off can't.
E.g. one Darwin C. No need to keep employers* happy or apply for research grants.
*Often including, or being, ministers of religion. E.g. Oxbridge professors, Scottish university profs dependent on town council oversight committees, etc.
But CR's point is an excellent and serious one. I had to do something similar as I realised I might have to jack in my job early. Didn't happen in the end, but the ability to do so was a great comfort.
A good example in my line of work is that very well paid civil advocates would be leaned on to do a bit of public service if they wanted silk or to go on the bench. But they took significant wage cuts to do the job. So there really was no pressure that could really be applied to them in determining what the public interest was. That independence has been encroached upon by policies in recent years but it is still an important feature of our justice system that should not be under valued.
Comments
Of course political opinions shouldn’t stop anyone from getting a job.
But, the general rule should be that so long as an employee does not let their political beliefs interfere with the job they are employed to do, such beliefs should not be a consideration.
One of the reasons that Vaughan was employed by the BBC is because of his public standing as a former England captain. It's much more relevant to his employment in such a public role that he maintains a good reputation than that I, an obscure nobody, does so. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether having such harsh potential employment consequences for speaking freely on the internet is legitimate, but the BBC are not at all out of line in doing so. Very middle of the road orthodoxy.
This is an area that I genuinely struggle with. I worry about people having their lives ruined for one momentary indiscretion. But then, on the other hand, if people do not want to associate with, or work with, or consume media featuring people who make them uncomfortable, because of said indiscretion, are they not free to exercise that choice? And if the BBC know that some of the players Vaughan might interview would be unhappy about that, or if many listeners might refuse to listen to Vaughan, is that not something they are allowed to react to?
I don't like the idea of creating social outcasts, and of course everyone should worry about social disapproval making them outcasts if it is allowed too free a rein - this was the fate of many to be unjustly ostracised in the past - but social approval/disapproval is one way for us to democratically mediate what we think is an acceptable level of behaviour that avoids involving the state and law in the minutiae of our lives, so I believe it must have a role to play.
In 2014, the PM acquiesced to FM Salmond’s preferred question, but ahead of the 2016 EU referendum the Electoral Commission were asked to consult and test extensively on referendum questions, with the result of the Remain and Leave options.
It would be awfully difficult to go back to the 2014 question for any future referendum, having done that research.
There's a lot of things China and the WHO have done wrong in this pandemic, and more generally too for China . . . but skipping a person's name is not one of them.
Expecting to have a Xi variant is as immature and childish as calling something the Boris variant.
It’s a fluid situation with inspections, counting fences to still see if they have enough, The Great British Weather has cancelled Bangor cards, but it looks like everything else will, touch wood, go ahead?
Glen Forsa has come in to favourite as Stodge said it would with Stodge already on it before the movement.
*entirely un-innocent face*
It's just Xi-ence fiction.
I'm sure that has nothing at all to do with why they skipped it, but they probably should put any potential virus names to the pun-gents here to make sure they can't easily be made fun of!
Did not last long as no wind at all today, though cold.
As we have it, the BBC have acted to punish Vaughan and leave him swinging in the wind when there is only an allegation and a denial, and the allegation from an individual who forgot his own record, before the BBC investigation has even reported back aiui. Is that account wrong?
That seems to me to be the antithsis of due or fair process.
I think the BBC needs to be held to account for that.
In motivated hands, a "reputational damage" policy becomes applied politically.
That single poll which showed Yes ahead in the week before 18/09/14 left deep scars.
There have been multiple allegations which have been corroborated by multiple witnesses.
Being suspended while investigations are carried out is precisely "due or fair process" and its not "swinging in the wind". To be sacked without an investigation would be unfair and not following due process, but to be suspended while investigations are ongoing is standard procedure.
1. Is the allegation credible? Two other witnesses who were there have corroborated the account given by Rafiq. For most reasonable people that would be enough.
2. To what extent is the BBC obliged to continue its employment of Vaughan? We have laws to protect people from wrongful dismissal for good reason, but appeals to due process seem a bit overblown at times like this, and it is for circumstances like this that a clause of bringing an employer into disrepute exist - it's a catch-all that allows for you to be fired for bad publicity alone, not necessarily bad conduct. There are some people who are generally in favour of absolute freedom for employers to hire and fire at will - for the good of the economy - but then make very po-faced appeals to due process when someone is fired due to racism.
Neither a confidence building look or good finish Lols
I have been on better runs than this though closest to winner was two seconds last Saturday.
EDITED - Newcastle cards definitely on
I'm making a hotpot.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle
@CommonsSpeaker
I would like to wish everyone a happy Lancashire Day! Today commemorates the day in 1295 when Lancashire first sent representatives to Parliament to visit the Model Parliament of King Edward I.
https://twitter.com/CommonsSpeaker/status/1464564665871077377
But naming a variant with a person's names is just a gratuitous and unnecessary insult.
My first car was a second-hand vehicle with a J reg plate back when letters were used. From memory the J reg plate series should have been the I reg plate series going alphabetically but I reg was skipped because of the risk that I could be confused for 1.
When there's a risk of confusion its standard procedure to skip that letter on the alphabet and move to the next one. Nothing original or funny business there, to not skip a leaders name would just be offensive for no good reason.
Next door lost the plaster off the outside walls.
Most roads in the village blocked. No trains or Metro at all as of now. Prudhoe Legion is a bomb site. Roof totally off, inside drenched and destroyed.
Was utterly wild!!
When did you join the Shinners?
*71 people actually , including 20 odd women in a men's urinal (no stalls) 4 foot by 3 foot
My good friend has been Chief Correspondent for a medium sized sport for over a decade. Commentary or 2 a week. Isn't an employee.
https://www.sportinglife.com/racing/results/2021-11-27/newcastle/658799/paul-ferguson-s-jumpers-to-follow-introductory-juvenile-hurdle-gbb-race
And second track inspection on snowy Wolverhampton seems a formality they will call it on.
I might skip the 'traditional' oysters (from when they were 'traditionally' cheap!) though..
The obvious, sensible thing would have been to call it the Winnie-the-Pooh variant.
https://twitter.com/natalieben/status/1464262672699043850?s=21
They can't have a "Vaughn's on, don't mention the racism" policy, when they'll clearly be talking a lot about the racism.
I think it's quite tough on him, but he is embroiled in it. I was encouraged hearing what Panesar said about him. I'd prefer him to be a bit of a dick sometimes than a nasty racist.
He was a bit of a dick the one time I met him just before the 2005 Ashes.
Why? I think the risk unlikely but I don't always express myself in the optimal way using the correct terminology and I can occasionally be impulsive. Because I can't be sure of which way the wind will blow it's a risk I'm now actively looking to mitigate, just as I do with critical illness or life assurance, so if I do have to switch career or take a low-lying job in future it won't adversely affect me or my family too much.
At least I won't want for firewood...
Old joke, being serious hope everyone's OK.
We escaped the severe weather. A bit of snow on the ground and a fallen over bird table is all we woke up to. The precipitation is tracking to the east of us so far today.
The winter season isn’t just dominated by a “few” set pieces though, there’s strong races going on all the time not least with the same big name protagonists showing their claims for the big clashes.
In fact I have had some success trying to pick out fast front runners on hurdles who should stay the distance, provided they don’t run right through the hurdle. I’m not sure about jumps, though I try hard it most likely goes wrong. Especially when winter kicks in. And in very big races, like King George and Gold Cup, much of all the form we have seen before from the horses can just disappear. Before I was born there was a 100-1 winner of the Gold Cup, that started in point to point and didn’t win many National Hunt races in his career
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton's_Coin
With hurdles I think it’s different because, especially if there is pacesetter for a true run race you can sort of know who should stay on for that distance at pace and less that should go wrong. The only metaphor I can think of, in the Olympics middle distance races the people clocking fastest time all year you would make favourites for medals from true run race, but then it’s a slow tactical race makes it anything can happen
61 positive cases on the two flights into Schiphol.
Two flights also landed at Heathrow - higher or lower?
I guess we'll never know, as we didn't test the passengers before they left the airport.
'Leopold Bloom ate with relish the inner organs of beasts and fowls. He liked thick giblet soup, nutty gizzards, a stuffed roast heart, liverslices fried with crustcrumbs, fried hencods' roes. But most of all, he liked grilled mutton kidneys which gave to his palate a fine tang of faintly scented urine.'
A bit different to naming a Covid variant with the President of China's name.
I doubt for some reason storm Arwen is going to be followed with Boris. I certainly don't expect a hurricane Joe any time soon.
Effectively I think they might be making a decision to re-employ him, were he to be commenting for this series ?
(& I hope that was a fat fingered rather than malicious 'off topic' flag.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_(surname)
*Often including, or being, ministers of religion. E.g. Oxbridge professors, Scottish university profs dependent on town council oversight committees, etc.
But CR's point is an excellent and serious one. I had to do something similar as I realised I might have to jack in my job early. Didn't happen in the end, but the ability to do so was a great comfort.
All cleared from the roads by lunchtime.
Nunu: noun, male private part, penis.
Etimolgy: nunu is a word for penis or sex organ of both sexes, came from Bengali/Bangla language, especially Bangladeshi Bengali via Bangladeshi immigrants/diaspora of the UK and the USA.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nunu
Sleet blowing hard across the finishing straight at times. About 1/2 in of sleety rain overnight, so going won't be terribly good, even if it does drain pretty well being on sand.
Some unkind soul suggested Tinky Winky for the latter.