"In the sense that his chapters are highly episodic,"
Probably because Dumas wrote his novels as a series of pieces for magazines each being published before the next was completed. This meant that not only did each episode have to include a mini-climax and a hook for the next one thus leaving readers with a sense of satisfaction and anticipation. Additionally, there is no way of knowing where a Dumas novel is going to go as you read it, probably because the author didn't really know when he was writing it.
An interesting technique, Dickens I think did something similar. I wonder if we could persuade Morris Dancer to have a go at it with his planned Sir Edric series.
Indeed - I've always thought it odd that the Three Musketeers gets made so often, when he wrote so many excellent page turners which would all be perfect for 6:30pm Sunday family drama material (and quite a few which would need to be after the water-shed).
A shame that he has a 2-D reputation largely due to that 1 book, when so many others have genuine nuance and characterisation (though still of a genre).
@rcs1000 As an aside, I'm good friends with the Pirate's UK Press Officer. He's suitably nuts (Hi Harry!), but he's also smart as a button. The Pirates are much more likely, I suspect, to think of innovative solutions to problems, than the - frankly populist - UKIP. ----------------------- Yes rcs100, anything to beat UKIP over the head with, you now bring in the Pirate party to assist you. You and your ilk must be really, really, scared of the growing UKIP phenom. It must absolutely give you the jitters to see your lovely, cosy, two party system become undone; thread by thread.
That's just daft Mike. RCS is absolutely right that UKIP has become more populist. Indeed whilst there are a few members like me who think that is a bad thing, the vast majority including yourself I suspect would welcome that development as it makes the party more electable.
He is also right that parties such as the Pirate party, who have no immediate ambitions to win Parliamentary seats, have the ability to be more innovative and push the boundaries a bit more. Again this is just common sense.
You really shouldn't take every last posting that doesn't sing the praises of UKIP as an attack on the party.
Dear me, our LibDem friends seem to have got themselves in a right pickle, and it's hard to see how they can extricate themselves without further collateral damage.
Since, clearly, the best thing from the party's point of view would be for everyone to shut up, the fact that they are not doing so suggests that this has become a proxy battle for something else: the idealists versus the pragmatists, perhaps?
"If he has been obnoxious and overbearing and made people feel uncomfortable but has not done anything that amounts to a provable case of sexual harassment "
In the public sector these days being obnoxious and overbearing and making a member of the opposite sex uncomfortable is sexual harassment. If you behave in that way and a woman complains mercy is seldom shown and never mind about the criminal standard of proof.
So we have the situation where a senior civil servant who behaved in the way Rennard allegedly did would certainly have been disciplined and quite probably fired, but a member of parliament doesn't even have to apologise. Not good.
Dear me, our LibDem friends seem to have got themselves in a right pickle, and it's hard to see how they can extricate themselves without further collateral damage.
Since, clearly, the best thing from the party's point of view would be for everyone to shut up, the fact that they are not doing so suggests that this has become a proxy battle for something else: the idealists versus the pragmatists, perhaps?
I think that is the problem. The party leaders do want everyone to shut up. This is a no win situation for them as long as they have members who feel they have been hard done by. The press will always seek them out and highlight their grievances whichever side of the argument they are on.
The idea that Rennard should fall on his sword for the party when to do so would be an effective admission of a guilt he does not feel and when the consequences of such an act would be to cement in everyone's mind that he is something he does not believe himself to be seems pretty daft.
"If he has been obnoxious and overbearing and made people feel uncomfortable but has not done anything that amounts to a provable case of sexual harassment "
In the public sector these days being obnoxious and overbearing and making a member of the opposite sex uncomfortable is sexual harassment. If you behave in that way and a woman complains mercy is seldom shown and never mind about the criminal standard of proof.
So we have the situation where a senior civil servant who behaved in the way Rennard allegedly did would certainly have been disciplined and quite probably fired, but a member of parliament doesn't even have to apologise. Not good.
But isn't the point that the enquiry has found he did not do anything that required disciplinary action? If so then surely the comparison falls as it would be the equivalent of a civil servant being cleared by a dsciplinary hearing. Under those circumstances any employer seeking to impose disciplinary action would be in line for a law suit.
The impression I get - just from new reports - was that on the 'balance of probabilities' he had misbehaved, but that they couldn't get to 'beyond reasonable doubt' as a standard of proof.
Hence the reason why he has been found not guilty, but there is an argument that he should apologise.
Only in Kafka's wilder nightmares...
We already know you are a misogynist, so I'll ignore you on this topic if you don't mind.
ah yes, my devil's dictionary explains what you are wittering about..
Mysogynist: "a man who hates women more than they hate each other..."
I don't think that's me, really... But I'll ask my three girlfriends' opinions, to be sure...
"If he has been obnoxious and overbearing and made people feel uncomfortable but has not done anything that amounts to a provable case of sexual harassment "
In the public sector these days being obnoxious and overbearing and making a member of the opposite sex uncomfortable is sexual harassment. If you behave in that way and a woman complains mercy is seldom shown and never mind about the criminal standard of proof.
So we have the situation where a senior civil servant who behaved in the way Rennard allegedly did would certainly have been disciplined and quite probably fired, but a member of parliament doesn't even have to apologise. Not good.
But isn't the point that the enquiry has found he did not do anything that required disciplinary action? If so then surely the comparison falls as it would be the equivalent of a civil servant being cleared by a dsciplinary hearing. Under those circumstances any employer seeking to impose disciplinary action would be in line for a law suit.
I don't think so, Mr. Tyndall, because of the different standards of proof that are applied. As I mentioned the beyond reasonable doubt standard is not applied elsewhere in the public sector in such cases.
I don't think so, Mr. Tyndall, because of the different standards of proof that are applied. As I mentioned the beyond reasonable doubt standard is not applied elsewhere in the public sector in such cases.
The trouble is that the beyond reasonable doubt standard is, as I understand it, what the LibDem internal rules specify. Maybe the rules are not very clever, but they are what they are, and they can't simply ignore them and apply a different standard.
"In the sense that his chapters are highly episodic,"
Probably because Dumas wrote his novels as a series of pieces for magazines each being published before the next was completed. This meant that not only did each episode have to include a mini-climax and a hook for the next one thus leaving readers with a sense of satisfaction and anticipation. Additionally, there is no way of knowing where a Dumas novel is going to go as you read it, probably because the author didn't really know when he was writing it.
An interesting technique, Dickens I think did something similar. I wonder if we could persuade Morris Dancer to have a go at it with his planned Sir Edric series.
Indeed - I've always thought it odd that the Three Musketeers gets made so often, when he wrote so many excellent page turners which would all be perfect for 6:30pm Sunday family drama material (and quite a few which would need to be after the water-shed).
A shame that he has a 2-D reputation largely due to that 1 book, when so many others have genuine nuance and characterisation (though still of a genre).
Publishing chapters in magazines was very common for 19th century novelists.
I reread the Three Musketeers in hospital, a few months ago. I read the whole text, and hadn't realised just how bowdlerised was the version I read in school. References to the Musketeers' affairs with married women, Athos' murder attempt on Milady, and D'artagnan's raping her, had all been deleted from my school's version of the book.
In fact, the Musketeers really were a bunch of shits.
"In the sense that his chapters are highly episodic,"
Probably because Dumas wrote his novels as a series of pieces for magazines each being published before the next was completed. This meant that not only did each episode have to include a mini-climax and a hook for the next one thus leaving readers with a sense of satisfaction and anticipation. Additionally, there is no way of knowing where a Dumas novel is going to go as you read it, probably because the author didn't really know when he was writing it.
An interesting technique, Dickens I think did something similar. I wonder if we could persuade Morris Dancer to have a go at it with his planned Sir Edric series.
Indeed - I've always thought it odd that the Three Musketeers gets made so often, when he wrote so many excellent page turners which would all be perfect for 6:30pm Sunday family drama material (and quite a few which would need to be after the water-shed).
A shame that he has a 2-D reputation largely due to that 1 book, when so many others have genuine nuance and characterisation (though still of a genre).
There was a great French film of La Reine Margot, a few years ago. That's a story that definitely needs to be after the watershed.
Was he wrong to press his case with them? Yes undoubtedly. It was crass and I would like to think I had more self awareness but being happily married I have not had the opportunity to test my own chivalry in that way for a good few decades. But in the end he did nothing illegal and if we are going to say that being crass and obnoxious is now a cause for dismissal from a political party then I am not sure how many politicians we would have left.
If Rennard has done something that breaks the law (either civil or criminal) then he should be prosecuted for it and suffer the consequences from the Lib Dems. If he has been obnoxious and overbearing and made people feel uncomfortable but has not done anything that amounts to a provable case of sexual harassment then the Lib Dems really should be accepting the findings of their own investigation and moving on.
You seem to be confused about whether Rennard has committed a criminal offence or "just" something that might constitute a workplace disciplinary offence. And also between legal (beyond reasonable doubt) and civil (on the balance of probabilities) levels of proof. Of course if the LibDem party's internal rulebook has saddled it with a legal degree of proof burden, that is stupid and it needs to change.
I would posit that in most organisations Rennard's actions would be regarded as misconduct and some sort of disciplinary action would be taken, short of dismissal. Although that might depend on how matey you are with the Chief Executive and how vital you are seen to the business...
"If he has been obnoxious and overbearing and made people feel uncomfortable but has not done anything that amounts to a provable case of sexual harassment "
In the public sector these days being obnoxious and overbearing and making a member of the opposite sex uncomfortable is sexual harassment. If you behave in that way and a woman complains mercy is seldom shown and never mind about the criminal standard of proof.
So we have the situation where a senior civil servant who behaved in the way Rennard allegedly did would certainly have been disciplined and quite probably fired, but a member of parliament doesn't even have to apologise. Not good.
But isn't the point that the enquiry has found he did not do anything that required disciplinary action? If so then surely the comparison falls as it would be the equivalent of a civil servant being cleared by a dsciplinary hearing. Under those circumstances any employer seeking to impose disciplinary action would be in line for a law suit.
I think it's not uncommon, when investigating the conduct of employees, to conclude that while their conduct does not merit formal disciplinary sanction, an apology from the employee in question would be appropriate.
The Webster opinion was that the level of criminal proof "beyond reasonable doubt" was not likely to be reached (though presumably if it went to court it would not be zero chance either!, prosecutors seem to consider anything that is not Odds on as not worth betting on). It does not however exonerate Rennard, and is very clear that the evidence was not insignificant.
A civil action "balance of probabilities" decision may well be different. Whether or not Rennard apologises, civil action may be possible, both against Rennard, and against senior party figures whose actions earlier in the affair may be open to challenge.
Without wanting to re-open the language debate, this is a real Tar-Baby!
"If he has been obnoxious and overbearing and made people feel uncomfortable but has not done anything that amounts to a provable case of sexual harassment "
In the public sector these days being obnoxious and overbearing and making a member of the opposite sex uncomfortable is sexual harassment. If you behave in that way and a woman complains mercy is seldom shown and never mind about the criminal standard of proof.
So we have the situation where a senior civil servant who behaved in the way Rennard allegedly did would certainly have been disciplined and quite probably fired, but a member of parliament doesn't even have to apologise. Not good.
But isn't the point that the enquiry has found he did not do anything that required disciplinary action? If so then surely the comparison falls as it would be the equivalent of a civil servant being cleared by a dsciplinary hearing. Under those circumstances any employer seeking to impose disciplinary action would be in line for a law suit.
I don't think so, Mr. Tyndall, because of the different standards of proof that are applied. As I mentioned the beyond reasonable doubt standard is not applied elsewhere in the public sector in such cases.
Isn't it in part a generational thing.? It was seen as acceptable (at least by them) for senior men to proposition and sometimes grope young women in their party , and this certainly wasn't confined to the lib dems. I'm sure many would have seen it as normal behaviour and that the women in question could reject their advances, and that most didn't mind. In fact many did mind but couldn't complain and now the world has changed and they will.
Don't know what happened in the rennard case but I don't think it will directly harm the lib dems in the polls. However given the importance to them of their activists and ground game the seeping of party morale could be very dangerous.
I think it's not uncommon, when investigating the conduct of employees, to conclude that while their conduct does not merit formal disciplinary sanction, an apology from the employee in question would be appropriate.
Employee law is not necessarily the same a "club law", and the LDs are essentially a club.
i) an apology would only be enforceable if indeed it was a sanction available under the rules.
ii) provided, it was issued by the proper domestic tribunal after inquiry in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Webster's 'legal opinion' + personal opinions appears to meet neither of these tests...
"If he has been obnoxious and overbearing and made people feel uncomfortable but has not done anything that amounts to a provable case of sexual harassment "
In the public sector these days being obnoxious and overbearing and making a member of the opposite sex uncomfortable is sexual harassment. If you behave in that way and a woman complains mercy is seldom shown and never mind about the criminal standard of proof.
So we have the situation where a senior civil servant who behaved in the way Rennard allegedly did would certainly have been disciplined and quite probably fired, but a member of parliament doesn't even have to apologise. Not good.
But isn't the point that the enquiry has found he did not do anything that required disciplinary action? If so then surely the comparison falls as it would be the equivalent of a civil servant being cleared by a dsciplinary hearing. Under those circumstances any employer seeking to impose disciplinary action would be in line for a law suit.
I think it's not uncommon, when investigating the conduct of employees, to conclude that while their conduct does not merit formal disciplinary sanction, an apology from the employee in question would be appropriate.
It would be normal to have conducted a disciplinary process first. You could then maybe say to the employee that if they apologised you would just give them a bollocking and not record it as an official oral warning.
RodCrosby, how can there be "no case to answer" if complaints have been made?
The Lib Dems are in a pickle over this because they can only get out of it if Rennard apologises. Since it is nowhere near the legal standard of proof and he's been hung out to dry by Clegg he is minded to certainly not apologise and the halfway house verdict the Lib Dems came to tars him 'morally' .
Basically it comes down to whether Rennard wants to 'take a hit for the team'. Clegg's problem is that if this was about Clegg then Clegg knows that Clegg would apologise in the same situation. He's applied his own moral compass to the situation (And so has Faron, others too) that Rennard should now act in a holier than thou manner on the subject.
Rennard it appears sees it ssomewhat differently. He's been hung out to dry by Clegg and legally he isn't guilty of anything. So he's decided to tell Clegg to do one and go down the legal course of action.
Clegg (And Faron And the Lib Dems) thought that Rennard's love of the Lib Dems would come before a thought for his personal reputation.
I think it's not uncommon, when investigating the conduct of employees, to conclude that while their conduct does not merit formal disciplinary sanction, an apology from the employee in question would be appropriate.
Employee law is not necessarily the same a "club law", and the LDs are essentially a club.
Actually, it's both. If Rennard was in a paid position when any of this alleged behaviour took place, then employment law applies. I'm not sure what his current position is in the party.
The difficulty is you cannot take disciplinary action against an ex-employee. If he is currently just a "club member" holding official or unofficial unpaid club officer roles then you could presumably only discipline him under club rules.
One option might be for Clegg to state that he has been dealt with under Party rules; as to employment law, he would never again be appointed to a paid position as his actions, while not constituting a breach of Party rules, are deemed inappropriate for a senior employee of the organisation.
RodCrosby, how can there be "no case to answer" if complaints have been made?
Because, as Webster in his bizarre meanderings essentially says, they don't come up to proof sufficient even to open disciplinary proceedings.
No disciplinary proceedings is quite literally no case to answer, rather obviously.
So we're down to the apparently bizarre LD rule book then. (More than) one person's word against another sounds like reasonable proof to start proceedings, even if you don't get anywhere.
So we're down to the apparently bizarre LD rule book then. (More than) one person's word against another sounds like reasonable proof to start proceedings, even if you don't get anywhere.
I have not seen it, but I doubt it could be classed as bizarre. No doubt it was formulated on legal advice, with due weight given to the principles of natural justice which, under public policy, the courts would deem to be implicit anyhow.
"In the sense that his chapters are highly episodic,"
Probably because Dumas wrote his novels as a series of pieces for magazines each being published before the next was completed. This meant that not only did each episode have to include a mini-climax and a hook for the next one thus leaving readers with a sense of satisfaction and anticipation. Additionally, there is no way of knowing where a Dumas novel is going to go as you read it, probably because the author didn't really know when he was writing it.
An interesting technique, Dickens I think did something similar. I wonder if we could persuade Morris Dancer to have a go at it with his planned Sir Edric series.
Indeed - I've always thought it odd that the Three Musketeers gets made so often, when he wrote so many excellent page turners which would all be perfect for 6:30pm Sunday family drama material (and quite a few which would need to be after the water-shed).
A shame that he has a 2-D reputation largely due to that 1 book, when so many others have genuine nuance and characterisation (though still of a genre).
There was a great French film of La Reine Margot, a few years ago. That's a story that definitely needs to be after the watershed.
Yes, I settled down to watch that with my parents a few years ago. It was a long night.
Those who think #Ukip & @Nigel_Farage lead an army of middle-class Tories should take a look at this chart -> pic.twitter.com/IFuhZe1whN
Who thought they were middle-class? Lots of former Tory supporters, though. You'd see what their demographics have in common if you grouped by age instead of class.
Rules are there for reason and must be construed properly.
In my case, for example, the rules said "The Executive Committee may withdraw membership from any member if continued membership is deemed to be contrary to the best interests of the club."
Would anyone care to have a go at construing it? There are at least five elephant traps, and my muppets obligingly leaped head-first into all of them...
Had the LDs handled this properly when the complaints were first raised, and Rennard a party employee, the employee disciplinary action might have led to some sort of resolution and stopped the thing in its tracks.
Unfortunately it wasn't and in an effort to hush the thing up, Rennard was eased out.
Got to say I think that's mad, especially as school meals have recently been made free for all kids... under 7, I think.
In the body it says families earning over £200k.
Someone on £80k with 2 kids and a non working spouse might well struggle to pay £40k fees !
Whatever your position the article header and body don't coincide.
I think they do: if I read it correctly, the *full* price is payable above £200K, so presumably there is a sliding scale of contributions that starts at £80K.
Those who think #Ukip & @Nigel_Farage lead an army of middle-class Tories should take a look at this chart -> pic.twitter.com/IFuhZe1whN
Who thought they were middle-class? Lots of former Tory supporters, though. You'd see what their demographics have in common if you grouped by age instead of class.
There was an image of UKIP supporters as blazer wearing golf club members, perpetuated by quite a few people on here. That said, maybe blazer wearing golf club members are not necessarily middle class!
Isn't it in part a generational thing.? It was seen as acceptable (at least by them) for senior men to proposition and sometimes grope young women in their party , and this certainly wasn't confined to the lib dems. I'm sure many would have seen it as normal behaviour and that the women in question could reject their advances, and that most didn't mind. In fact many did mind but couldn't complain and now the world has changed and they will.
Don't know what happened in the rennard case but I don't think it will directly harm the lib dems in the polls. However given the importance to them of their activists and ground game the seeping of party morale could be very dangerous.
Tom
You are quite right. The right to grope is an ancient privilege.
I believe it is known today in the Lib Dem Party as "le droit de Senior".
Isn't it in part a generational thing.? It was seen as acceptable (at least by them) for senior men to proposition and sometimes grope young women in their party , and this certainly wasn't confined to the lib dems. I'm sure many would have seen it as normal behaviour and that the women in question could reject their advances, and that most didn't mind. In fact many did mind but couldn't complain and now the world has changed and they will.
Don't know what happened in the rennard case but I don't think it will directly harm the lib dems in the polls. However given the importance to them of their activists and ground game the seeping of party morale could be very dangerous.
Tom
You are quite right. The right to grope is an ancient privilege.
I believe it is known today in the Lib Dem Party as "le droit de Senior".
Miliband is going to put up taxes to cut the deficit, according to the telegraph.
He'll aim at the rich first of course. When they don;t pay or move somewhere else he'll have the bones off the backs of the rest of us.
This is a perfectly legitimate option by the two Eds.
Osborne opted for a fiscal consolidation plan with a ratio of contributions between tax cuts and spending cuts of 20:80. This was the highest ratio recorded by the OECD among all countries undertaking significant deficit reduction programmes.
The result has been above average GDP growth, a faster exit from recession and the creation of more incentives for foreign inbound investment.
There will always be trade-offs when making decisions on how to achieve a core macro-economic goal.
Provided the two Eds spell out the consequences to the economy and the country of placing greater weight on tax rises when seeking to reduce the deficit, it would be beneficial for the electorate to have a real difference in economic policy upon which to make a decision in 2015.
Unfortunately for Christopher Booker, most of it is found in his own prejudices and preconceptions.
I don't think that Booker is inaccurate in his description of the views of many Conservative, and ex-Conservative voters. Obviously, you would disagree with those views.
Those who think #Ukip & @Nigel_Farage lead an army of middle-class Tories should take a look at this chart -> pic.twitter.com/IFuhZe1whN
Who thought they were middle-class? Lots of former Tory supporters, though. You'd see what their demographics have in common if you grouped by age instead of class.
Until fairly recently, the image of a UKIP supporter was of someone drinking a G & T at the 19th hole, and lamenting women getting the vote.
More recent polling shows they're mostly people on average incomes aged 40 plus.
I don't think so, Mr. Tyndall, because of the different standards of proof that are applied. As I mentioned the beyond reasonable doubt standard is not applied elsewhere in the public sector in such cases.
The trouble is that the beyond reasonable doubt standard is, as I understand it, what the LibDem internal rules specify. Maybe the rules are not very clever, but they are what they are, and they can't simply ignore them and apply a different standard.
Tell that to the female L/Dem members who are now leaving that party. The little ripple of female leavers may, if Clegg is not careful, become a tidal wave.
Eloquently put Mr. LP. I can't help but think that the story would have more popular media traction were it Lord Razzall rather than Rennard who was accused.
You mean they don't want the government to get it right first time, but would rather have a new headline every week?
It's copying the New Labour tactic of announcing something every week to make people think you're doing something. It doesn't matter if the announced policies don't make any sense because they won't actually be doing them.
Isn't it in part a generational thing.? It was seen as acceptable (at least by them) for senior men to proposition and sometimes grope young women in their party , and this certainly wasn't confined to the lib dems. I'm sure many would have seen it as normal behaviour and that the women in question could reject their advances, and that most didn't mind. In fact many did mind but couldn't complain and now the world has changed and they will.
Don't know what happened in the rennard case but I don't think it will directly harm the lib dems in the polls. However given the importance to them of their activists and ground game the seeping of party morale could be very dangerous.
Tom
You are quite right. The right to grope is an ancient privilege.
I believe it is known today in the Lib Dem Party as "le droit de Senior".
Le droit de Mark Senior ?!?!?!?!?
Jack
Is it not why 'tis said a Mark is worth a hundred Pennies?
Miliband is going to put up taxes to cut the deficit, according to the telegraph.
He'll aim at the rich first of course. When they don;t pay or move somewhere else he'll have the bones off the backs of the rest of us.
This is a perfectly legitimate option by the two Eds.
Osborne opted for a fiscal consolidation plan with a ratio of contributions between tax cuts and spending cuts of 20:80. This was the highest ratio recorded by the OECD among all countries undertaking significant deficit reduction programmes.
The result has been above average GDP growth, a faster exit from recession and the creation of more incentives for foreign inbound investment.
There will always be trade-offs when making decisions on how to achieve a core macro-economic goal.
Provided the two Eds spell out the consequences to the economy and the country of placing greater weight on tax rises when seeking to reduce the deficit, it would be beneficial for the electorate to have a real difference in economic policy upon which to make a decision in 2015.
Too late to edit: "ratio between tax rises and spending cuts"
I gather some cheeky wotsit has leaked the entire Oscar DVD collections onto Pirate Bay. That's most helpful of them!
There are frequently older copies with a warning subtitle on the download that clearly came from Oscar vote recipients - but I don't recall a renegade going the whole hog before.
I'm out of touch with what's supposed to be worth watching from the nominations.
Any suggestions most appreciated as I now nerd about TV and films on another site and with shop assistants. I somehow ended up chatting about movies in Spar and Harry Ramsdens and tripped across one chap who's studying direction and another whose a nerd.
I can't buy a bag of chips without getting a subtitled Russian Chekov movie and being asked for my suggestions. Who knew fish and chips would be intellectually demanding?
I now share these with the check-out guy in Spar - what an odd little group we make!
Dull day? Go to the cinema and watch The Wolf of Wall Street. Scorcese's finest film ever.
The BBC's Mark Kermode told us not to. It's 3 hours long, and the central character is so objectionable that there is no reason for the viewer to get emotionally involved in the story at all.
Don't. It's terrible. It is completely unredemptive the entire way through. Sure it's vaguely fun for the first 60-70 minutes, but ultimately I just came out of the movie feeling depressed and slightly soiled. (And I could have enjoyed it either as a finance geek - like I really enjoy Margin Call - or just as a Scorcese film)
Belfont was a crook, plain and simple. Scorcese gets sucked into the pizzazz and superficial glamour and doesn't think at all about consequences for his victims who just don't figure in the movie at all.
I gather some cheeky wotsit has leaked the entire Oscar DVD collections onto Pirate Bay. That's most helpful of them!
There are frequently older copies with a warning subtitle on the download that clearly came from Oscar vote recipients - but I don't recall a renegade going the whole hog before.
I'm out of touch with what's supposed to be worth watching from the nominations.
Any suggestions most appreciated as I now nerd about TV and films on another site and with shop assistants. I somehow ended up chatting about movies in Spar and Harry Ramsdens and tripped across one chap who's studying direction and another whose a nerd.
I can't buy a bag of chips without getting a subtitled Russian Chekov movie and being asked for my suggestions. Who knew fish and chips would be intellectually demanding?
I now share these with the check-out guy in Spar - what an odd little group we make!
Dull day? Go to the cinema and watch The Wolf of Wall Street. Scorcese's finest film ever.
The BBC's Mark Kermode told us not to. It's 3 hours long, and the central character is so objectionable that there is no reason for the viewer to get emotionally involved in the story at all.
Don't. It's terrible. It is completely unredemptive the entire way through. Sure it's vaguely fun for the first 60-70 minutes, but ultimately I just came out of the movie feeling depressed and slightly soiled. (And I could have enjoyed it either as a finance geek - like I really enjoy Margin Call - or just as a Scorcese film)
Belfont was a crook, plain and simple. Scorcese gets sucked into the pizzazz and superficial glamour and doesn't think at all about consequences for his victims who just don't figure in the movie at all.
I am hoping that your now rare but welcome appearance on PB will wake Roger, another PB stalwart, from his slothful slumber.
Many thanks to @DavidL for explaining some of the barbarities of Scots law in relation to the story in the news today. David, if you are still around, I have a question. Is Her Majesty's Advocate still dominus litis, so that it is illegal for a court in Scotland to sentence anyone unless the Crown moves for sentence, and that the Crown may move for sentence in respect of a lesser offence than that on which the accused was convicted, e.g. assault to injury in a case of murder?
Dear me, our LibDem friends seem to have got themselves in a right pickle, and it's hard to see how they can extricate themselves without further collateral damage.
Since, clearly, the best thing from the party's point of view would be for everyone to shut up, the fact that they are not doing so suggests that this has become a proxy battle for something else: the idealists versus the pragmatists, perhaps?
Mr. Nabavi
Hiding behind a double negative, am I not incorrect that you are suggesting the Lib Lords revolt on Rennard's treatment might be a proxy for a leadership battle?
Perhaps Lord Rennard is plotting to put Sarah Teather on top?
Isn't it in part a generational thing.? It was seen as acceptable (at least by them) for senior men to proposition and sometimes grope young women in their party , and this certainly wasn't confined to the lib dems. I'm sure many would have seen it as normal behaviour and that the women in question could reject their advances, and that most didn't mind. In fact many did mind but couldn't complain and now the world has changed and they will.
Don't know what happened in the rennard case but I don't think it will directly harm the lib dems in the polls. However given the importance to them of their activists and ground game the seeping of party morale could be very dangerous.
Tom
You are quite right. The right to grope is an ancient privilege.
I believe it is known today in the Lib Dem Party as "le droit de Senior".
Le droit de Mark Senior ?!?!?!?!?
Jack
Is it not why 'tis said a Mark is worth a hundred Pennies?
Is it said? I always thought a Mark was worth a third of a Pound, that is 6s 8d, or 80 pennies. A hundred pennies would have been 8s 4d, a very odd amount in a pre-decimal world.
I gather some cheeky wotsit has leaked the entire Oscar DVD collections onto Pirate Bay. That's most helpful of them!
There are frequently older copies with a warning subtitle on the download that clearly came from Oscar vote recipients - but I don't recall a renegade going the whole hog before.
I'm out of touch with what's supposed to be worth watching from the nominations.
Any suggestions most appreciated as I now nerd about TV and films on another site and with shop assistants. I somehow ended up chatting about movies in Spar and Harry Ramsdens and tripped across one chap who's studying direction and another whose a nerd.
I can't buy a bag of chips without getting a subtitled Russian Chekov movie and being asked for my suggestions. Who knew fish and chips would be intellectually demanding?
I now share these with the check-out guy in Spar - what an odd little group we make!
Dull day? Go to the cinema and watch The Wolf of Wall Street. Scorcese's finest film ever.
The BBC's Mark Kermode told us not to. It's 3 hours long, and the central character is so objectionable that there is no reason for the viewer to get emotionally involved in the story at all.
Don't. It's terrible. It is completely unredemptive the entire way through. Sure it's vaguely fun for the first 60-70 minutes, but ultimately I just came out of the movie feeling depressed and slightly soiled. (And I could have enjoyed it either as a finance geek - like I really enjoy Margin Call - or just as a Scorcese film)
Belfont was a crook, plain and simple. Scorcese gets sucked into the pizzazz and superficial glamour and doesn't think at all about consequences for his victims who just don't figure in the movie at all.
I've seen American Hussle (great performances, half an hour too long), Gravity (stunning) and Philomena (good script & performances, but not sure what it's doing in the Best a Film category) and would recommend all three. I'd also recommend one of the films up for best documentary, The Act of Killing - stunning and harrowing...
You mean they don't want the government to get it right first time, but would rather have a new headline every week?
It's copying the New Labour tactic of announcing something every week to make people think you're doing something. It doesn't matter if the announced policies don't make any sense because they won't actually be doing them.
I'm not sure they've got this right, New Labour would announce something every week and announce the same policy multiple times, but not the same policy every week.
The other thing Labour (or at least Blair) had going for them was that they had a consistent theme that went along with their brand, so they could get along with talking a lot but not doing much substantial, because people believed them when they talked about it. Whereas Cameron built his brand on _not_ biting tramps, so if he announces that he's going to bite the same tramp once a week but the tramp is always still walking around without any visible tooth marks, the voters are just going to think he's full of shit.
Isn't it in part a generational thing.? It was seen as acceptable (at least by them) for senior men to proposition and sometimes grope young women in their party , and this certainly wasn't confined to the lib dems. I'm sure many would have seen it as normal behaviour and that the women in question could reject their advances, and that most didn't mind. In fact many did mind but couldn't complain and now the world has changed and they will.
Don't know what happened in the rennard case but I don't think it will directly harm the lib dems in the polls. However given the importance to them of their activists and ground game the seeping of party morale could be very dangerous.
Tom
You are quite right. The right to grope is an ancient privilege.
I believe it is known today in the Lib Dem Party as "le droit de Senior".
Le droit de Mark Senior ?!?!?!?!?
Jack
Is it not why 'tis said a Mark is worth a hundred Pennies?
Is it said? I always thought a Mark was worth a third of a Pound, that is 6s 8d, or 80 pennies. A hundred pennies would have been 8s 4d, a very odd amount in a pre-decimal world.
By pure chance and with no claim of any prior knowledge, it appears we are both correct:
The Mark was a monetary weight unit in the 9th century. It was worth 100 pennies @ 22½ grains = 2250 grains (of wheat, each now determined to weigh 48.6mg, barley was heavier at 64.8mg per grain). The Pound had been a weight unit since the time of the Romans (libra hence the abbreviation L.) and the pound weight was 240 pennies or 5400 grains. The mark was replaced with the Carolingian pound, created by Charlemagne around 800 A.D., and the mark was revalued at two-thirds of a pound equalling 160 pence or 13s-4d. The Carolingian pound weighed 12 ounces so a mark was 8 ounces of silver equivalent to the weight of twenty silver pennies. He also divided the silver pound into 20 solidi, or sous, or shillings, which was a throwback to the Gallic or Celtic method of counting in 20’s, each worth 12 denare, which in turn was a throwback to the Graeco-Roman method of counting in 12’s. This £1=20s=240d relationship was the well-known 1:20:240 which characterised the majority of silver-based monetary systems until the Napoleonic reforms of 1795. One mark of 24 carat gold equalled nine silver marks and was worth £6.
You mean they don't want the government to get it right first time, but would rather have a new headline every week?
It's copying the New Labour tactic of announcing something every week to make people think you're doing something. It doesn't matter if the announced policies don't make any sense because they won't actually be doing them.
I'm not sure they've got this right, New Labour would announce something every week and announce the same policy multiple times, but not the same policy every week.
The other thing Labour (or at least Blair) had going for them was that they had a consistent theme that went along with their brand, so they could get along with talking a lot but not doing much substantial, because people believed them when they talked about it. Whereas Cameron built his brand on _not_ biting tramps, so if he announces that he's going to bite the same tramp once a week but the tramp is always still walking around without any visible tooth marks, the voters are just going to think he's full of shit.
Yes, plus New Labour also had a massive credit boom so a lot less people were paying attention than they are now.
You mean they don't want the government to get it right first time, but would rather have a new headline every week?
It's copying the New Labour tactic of announcing something every week to make people think you're doing something. It doesn't matter if the announced policies don't make any sense because they won't actually be doing them.
It was the Mail on Sunday not the government came up with the idea.
They are just lazy sobs who don't want to have to work for their front page story each week
I'm just bored stiff with UK politics, the circularity of its discussion. I've emigrated to a place where we have weekly guaranteed excitement and go OT every 10 threads. There's huge traffic so bar the quiet time when US posters are asleep - it's every few seconds. Leave it for a night and it's a running battle to get back on top of opinions/shared videos and news. We talk about everything tangentially connected with a subject.
I fondly recall when we could do so on PB - discussions about Killer Cucumbers and E. coli - where lurking expertise popped up, or weapons inspection and Grand Juries, favourite vegetables/recipes, cat videos, amazing pictures of low-flying aircraft or squabbling about mis-captioned naval ships.
For lots of reasons, OGH doesn't want PB to be like that anymore - so I feel I'm more at home elsewhere that's more free-range. We never discuss politics at all.
I gather some cheeky wotsit has leaked the entire Oscar DVD collections onto Pirate Bay. That's most helpful of them!
There are frequently older copies with a warning subtitle on the download that clearly came from Oscar vote recipients - but I don't recall a renegade going the whole hog before.
I'm out of touch with what's supposed to be worth watching from the nominations.
Any suggestions most appreciated as I now nerd about TV and films on another site and with shop assistants. I somehow ended up chatting about movies in Spar and Harry Ramsdens and tripped across one chap who's studying direction and another whose a nerd.
I can't buy a bag of chips without getting a subtitled Russian Chekov movie and being asked for my suggestions. Who knew fish and chips would be intellectually demanding?
I now share these with the check-out guy in Spar - what an odd little group we make!
Dull day? Go to the cinema and watch The Wolf of Wall Street. Scorcese's finest film ever.
The BBC's Mark Kermode told us not to. It's 3 hours long, and the central character is so objectionable that there is no reason for the viewer to get emotionally involved in the story at all.
Don't. It's terrible. It is completely unredemptive the entire way through. Sure it's vaguely fun for the first 60-70 minutes, but ultimately I just came out of the movie feeling depressed and slightly soiled. (And I could have enjoyed it either as a finance geek - like I really enjoy Margin Call - or just as a Scorcese film)
Belfont was a crook, plain and simple. Scorcese gets sucked into the pizzazz and superficial glamour and doesn't think at all about consequences for his victims who just don't figure in the movie at all.
"... the voters are just going to think he [Cameron]'s full of shit."
No!. Nobody could think that about Cameron, surely. The fact that his party's membership is in free-fall and he has, and probably will again, haemorrhaged voters is due to changing demographics, peculiarities of our voting system, world-wide trends, phases of the moon, anything other than the fact that an awful of members and voters have twigged that he is full of shit and is as trustworthy as Arthur Daley.
I gather some cheeky wotsit has leaked the entire Oscar DVD collections onto Pirate Bay. That's most helpful of them!
There are frequently older copies with a warning subtitle on the download that clearly came from Oscar vote recipients - but I don't recall a renegade going the whole hog before.
I'm out of touch with what's supposed to be worth watching from the nominations.
Any suggestions most appreciated as I now nerd about TV and films on another site and with shop assistants. I somehow ended up chatting about movies in Spar and Harry Ramsdens and tripped across one chap who's studying direction and another whose a nerd.
I can't buy a bag of chips without getting a subtitled Russian Chekov movie and being asked for my suggestions. Who knew fish and chips would be intellectually demanding?
I now share these with the check-out guy in Spar - what an odd little group we make!
Dull day? Go to the cinema and watch The Wolf of Wall Street. Scorcese's finest film ever.
The BBC's Mark Kermode told us not to. It's 3 hours long, and the central character is so objectionable that there is no reason for the viewer to get emotionally involved in the story at all.
Don't. It's terrible. It is completely unredemptive the entire way through. Sure it's vaguely fun for the first 60-70 minutes, but ultimately I just came out of the movie feeling depressed and slightly soiled. (And I could have enjoyed it either as a finance geek - like I really enjoy Margin Call - or just as a Scorcese film)
Belfont was a crook, plain and simple. Scorcese gets sucked into the pizzazz and superficial glamour and doesn't think at all about consequences for his victims who just don't figure in the movie at all.
I've seen American Hussle (great performances, half an hour too long), Gravity (stunning) and Philomena (good script & performances, but not sure what it's doing in the Best a Film category) and would recommend all three. I'd also recommend one of the films up for best documentary, The Act of Killing - stunning and harrowing...
I'm certainly no fan of Ed Miliband, but what is the evidence that the rich will move away from the UK in large enough numbers to negate an increase in rates? I'm sure individual examples can be found, but of a sufficient number to make a tangible macroeconomic effect? I haven't seen anything.
"You go into politics and you accept the notion of a collective agreement for the greater good. After 15 years working in the Lib Dems I realised there's no greater good, just everyone doing a shit job.
"Parliament is a place of blind ignorance, stuffed with racists and sexists and they are all idiots and they are accepted. And that's why I walked away. I was actually wasting my time."
She attacked the "intellectual sexist culture and endemic sleazy culture of Westminster". She said: "When I worked in the whips' office I had 10 male MPs who behaved completely inappropriately to me. It's far from unusual for researchers to have their bottoms pinched and to be kissed on the lips."
It sounds like a neanderthal workplace in the Seventies, I cannot see her and the others being happy with Rennard Lording it over the party again.
I'm certainly no fan of Ed Miliband, but what is the evidence that the rich will move away from the UK in large enough numbers to negate an increase in rates? I'm sure individual examples can be found, but of a sufficient number to make a tangible macroeconomic effect? I haven't seen anything.
What happened to revenue the last time they raised rates? Is that relevant evidence?
1) Combined-sector banks distort both sector's business model (blah blah) 2) Lending for consumption and debt saturation is ultimately deflationary through feedback effect on the velocity of money (blah blah) 3) The third one is the capital ratio needs to be a throttle and not just a speed limiter and the capital ratios considered the default *normal* are too high. The default needs to be much lower and only go up when there's a lot of innovation (or modernization which is really just stored innovation).
(3) creates the boom part of the constant boom-bust cycles, (2) creates the bust part, both magnified to massively destructive levels by (1).
TL;DR They're going to do it again because they own the political class and thus have no brakes.
"... the voters are just going to think he [Cameron]'s full of shit."
No!. Nobody could think that about Cameron, surely. The fact that his party's membership is in free-fall and he has, and probably will again, haemorrhaged voters is due to changing demographics, peculiarities of our voting system, world-wide trends, phases of the moon, anything other than the fact that an awful of members and voters have twigged that he is full of shit and is as trustworthy as Arthur Daley.
Look across the Channel perhaps to see how well tax rises have worked in France?
Its not just moving abroad, or creating new accountancy dodges, sometimes it is simply a matter of throttling back at work. My NHS Salary is £89 000 per year, but if I earn more than £10 000 or so privately I get taxed at a marginal rate in the 60% bracket, by removal of the personal allowance. After secretarial, room rent, indemnity insurance and other expenses it is difficult to justify working. Better to walk the dog and surf the net.
I'm certainly no fan of Ed Miliband, but what is the evidence that the rich will move away from the UK in large enough numbers to negate an increase in rates? I'm sure individual examples can be found, but of a sufficient number to make a tangible macroeconomic effect? I haven't seen anything.
F1: So apparently the door for Lewis Hamilton at McLaren has been reopened. His contract with Mercedes runs to the end of 2015.
Ross Brawn is the leading candidate for team principal. Sam Michael is supposedly out. Ron wants a clear out of anyone brought in by Whitmarsh.
Sam Michael being out can only be a good thing. I daresay he's a nice chap, but what success has he had? He was there when they turned the lights out at the original Lotus, was involved with Jordan's minor successes, and then joined Williams for their long decline. Finally Macca for their worst season in a couple of decades.
Horner he ain't. There must be better candidates for top teams out there.
"You go into politics and you accept the notion of a collective agreement for the greater good. After 15 years working in the Lib Dems I realised there's no greater good, just everyone doing a shit job.
"Parliament is a place of blind ignorance, stuffed with racists and sexists and they are all idiots and they are accepted. And that's why I walked away. I was actually wasting my time."
She attacked the "intellectual sexist culture and endemic sleazy culture of Westminster". She said: "When I worked in the whips' office I had 10 male MPs who behaved completely inappropriately to me. It's far from unusual for researchers to have their bottoms pinched and to be kissed on the lips."
It sounds like a neanderthal workplace in the Seventies, I cannot see her and the others being happy with Rennard Lording it over the party again.
Very strong statement on Rennard by Danny Alexander in an interview screened on Sky TV.
The Lib Dems have a real statesman-in-waiting in Danny. Tough and competent liberalism.
The Lib Dems should compromise over Rennard - instead of an apology they should just subject him to years of groping by fat, drunk, middle-age sleazebags as a punishment. Actually with the insight that would bring an apology might even be forthcoming as well.
10/51 Male LD MP's would be quite a proportion, even higher if one supposes that only heterosexual MPs were behaving like this. It may be though that not all the MP pests were LD MPs, or male.
The culture of the Palace of Westminster, with its many bars, and MPs living away from their families surrounded by young wannabes, does lay it open to this sort of thing, particularly when progression to a safe seat relies so much on patronage.
It is another manifestation of the problems that arise when all political parties are favouring their own SPADS and researchers for preferment, over the wider community of the voting public.
Mr. Max, very interesting post. I'd heard Brawn/Whitmarsh rumours before, but this is the first time I've heard Sam Michael mentioned. Perhaps unsurprising, given his record at Williams and then McLaren in 2013.
"You go into politics and you accept the notion of a collective agreement for the greater good. After 15 years working in the Lib Dems I realised there's no greater good, just everyone doing a shit job.
"Parliament is a place of blind ignorance, stuffed with racists and sexists and they are all idiots and they are accepted. And that's why I walked away. I was actually wasting my time."
She attacked the "intellectual sexist culture and endemic sleazy culture of Westminster". She said: "When I worked in the whips' office I had 10 male MPs who behaved completely inappropriately to me. It's far from unusual for researchers to have their bottoms pinched and to be kissed on the lips."
It sounds like a neanderthal workplace in the Seventies, I cannot see her and the others being happy with Rennard Lording it over the party again.
Very strong statement on Rennard by Danny Alexander in an interview screened on Sky TV.
The Lib Dems have a real statesman-in-waiting in Danny. Tough and competent liberalism.
Many thanks to @DavidL for explaining some of the barbarities of Scots law in relation to the story in the news today. David, if you are still around, I have a question. Is Her Majesty's Advocate still dominus litis, so that it is illegal for a court in Scotland to sentence anyone unless the Crown moves for sentence, and that the Crown may move for sentence in respect of a lesser offence than that on which the accused was convicted, e.g. assault to injury in a case of murder?
In the High Court yes. The most common scenario is where there have been relatively minor charges on the indictment which were basically there to allow the leading of some evidence thought to be useful in the main charges. If the jury only finds the accused guilty of the minor charges the Advocate Depute will not move for sentence with the result that the court cannot impose one. Edit. I have never heard of an AD move for sentence on a lesser charge though and I don't think that would be competent.
Of course ADs do wake up sweating after dreams where they have omitted to move for sentence on more serious matters and this has happened at least once.
For more trivial stuff in the Sheriff court we don't bother with this sort of nonsense and the matter of sentence is entirely for the court.
By the way I should make clear that I do not accept the description of Scots law being barbarous. I am delighted that the Scottish government seems to have backed off the idea of abolishing the law of corroboration this week and it will remain a shining jewel in our crown. I find the idea that someone can be convicted on the single word of a single witness quite frightening.
'I'm certainly no fan of Ed Miliband, but what is the evidence that the rich will move away from the UK in large enough numbers to negate an increase in rates?'
He's sporting director at Macca, and therefore more in the Horner role than the Newey one. Although he's done both race engineer and technical director roles.
Sadly, I don't think he's up to the standard of F1. He allegedly wasn't well liked by many of the grunts at Williams.
Mr. Max, very interesting post. I'd heard Brawn/Whitmarsh rumours before, but this is the first time I've heard Sam Michael mentioned. Perhaps unsurprising, given his record at Williams and then McLaren in 2013.
Well none of it bodes well for Button either. Michael was brought in essentially by Button's management to consolidate his position within the team, Hamilton's team opposed his recruitment, and it came as no surprise that once Michael was confirmed, Hamilton and Lowe were both on their way out.
Whitmarsh has really ballsed up the team though. At least Ron will sort it all out. If Ross Brawn can be convinced to give up his planned year off I daresay McLaren will surprise a lot of people in the coming season.
Tim Goss is also another one heading for the chopping block but they will probably keep him around until RBR let go of Peter Prodromou for the 2015 season.
As a McLaren fan first and foremost it is the best news I've heard in ages about them. Clearing out the deadwood is what they need. Getting rid of Button, Whitmarsh, Sam Michael, Jonathan Neale and the rest will revitalise the team.
Getting a big name sponsor in will also be a big challenge, one that Whitmarsh was not up to. He kept barking up our tree at Sony. I know for a fact that team sponsorship is not our MO. We would sponsor races or events. Ron will get a title sponsor sorted out for the transition season and then a big name from 2015 onwards. My money is on HSBC or Standard Chartered, both have a huge Asian presence and McLaren automotive is going to expand in Asia significantly under Ron's plans.
The Lib Dems should compromise over Rennard - instead of an apology they should just subject him to years of groping by fat, drunk, middle-age sleazebags as a punishment. Actually with the insight that would bring an apology might even be forthcoming as well.
Are you volunteering....though I wouldn't say you were fat?
The Lib Dems should compromise over Rennard - instead of an apology they should just subject him to years of groping by fat, drunk, middle-age sleazebags as a punishment. Actually with the insight that would bring an apology might even be forthcoming as well.
Are you volunteering....though I wouldn't say you were fat?
I'm willing to play my part. But I was thinking Brian Coleman...
Comments
A shame that he has a 2-D reputation largely due to that 1 book, when so many others have genuine nuance and characterisation (though still of a genre).
He is also right that parties such as the Pirate party, who have no immediate ambitions to win Parliamentary seats, have the ability to be more innovative and push the boundaries a bit more. Again this is just common sense.
You really shouldn't take every last posting that doesn't sing the praises of UKIP as an attack on the party.
Doesn't look right.
Since, clearly, the best thing from the party's point of view would be for everyone to shut up, the fact that they are not doing so suggests that this has become a proxy battle for something else: the idealists versus the pragmatists, perhaps?
In the public sector these days being obnoxious and overbearing and making a member of the opposite sex uncomfortable is sexual harassment. If you behave in that way and a woman complains mercy is seldom shown and never mind about the criminal standard of proof.
So we have the situation where a senior civil servant who behaved in the way Rennard allegedly did would certainly have been disciplined and quite probably fired, but a member of parliament doesn't even have to apologise. Not good.
The idea that Rennard should fall on his sword for the party when to do so would be an effective admission of a guilt he does not feel and when the consequences of such an act would be to cement in everyone's mind that he is something he does not believe himself to be seems pretty daft.
Mysogynist: "a man who hates women more than they hate each other..."
I don't think that's me, really... But I'll ask my three girlfriends' opinions, to be sure...
I reread the Three Musketeers in hospital, a few months ago. I read the whole text, and hadn't realised just how bowdlerised was the version I read in school. References to the Musketeers' affairs with married women, Athos' murder attempt on Milady, and D'artagnan's raping her, had all been deleted from my school's version of the book.
In fact, the Musketeers really were a bunch of shits.
I would posit that in most organisations Rennard's actions would be regarded as misconduct and some sort of disciplinary action would be taken, short of dismissal. Although that might depend on how matey you are with the Chief Executive and how vital you are seen to the business...
Irrespective of the 'standard of proof' reputedly required by the LibDem rules...
Rennard has never been given the opportunity to be heard.
Because there is no case to answer under the rules.
Therefore the matter is closed.
End of.
The Webster opinion was that the level of criminal proof "beyond reasonable doubt" was not likely to be reached (though presumably if it went to court it would not be zero chance either!, prosecutors seem to consider anything that is not Odds on as not worth betting on). It does not however exonerate Rennard, and is very clear that the evidence was not insignificant.
A civil action "balance of probabilities" decision may well be different. Whether or not Rennard apologises, civil action may be possible, both against Rennard, and against senior party figures whose actions earlier in the affair may be open to challenge.
Without wanting to re-open the language debate, this is a real Tar-Baby!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar-Baby
Don't know what happened in the rennard case but I don't think it will directly harm the lib dems in the polls. However given the importance to them of their activists and ground game the seeping of party morale could be very dangerous.
i) an apology would only be enforceable if indeed it was a sanction available under the rules.
ii) provided, it was issued by the proper domestic tribunal after inquiry in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Webster's 'legal opinion' + personal opinions appears to meet neither of these tests...
RodCrosby, how can there be "no case to answer" if complaints have been made?
Basically it comes down to whether Rennard wants to 'take a hit for the team'. Clegg's problem is that if this was about Clegg then Clegg knows that Clegg would apologise in the same situation. He's applied his own moral compass to the situation (And so has Faron, others too) that Rennard should now act in a holier than thou manner on the subject.
Rennard it appears sees it ssomewhat differently. He's been hung out to dry by Clegg and legally he isn't guilty of anything. So he's decided to tell Clegg to do one and go down the legal course of action.
Clegg (And Faron And the Lib Dems) thought that Rennard's love of the Lib Dems would come before a thought for his personal reputation.
Rennard has decided otherwise.
No disciplinary proceedings is quite literally no case to answer, rather obviously.
The difficulty is you cannot take disciplinary action against an ex-employee. If he is currently just a "club member" holding official or unofficial unpaid club officer roles then you could presumably only discipline him under club rules.
One option might be for Clegg to state that he has been dealt with under Party rules; as to employment law, he would never again be appointed to a paid position as his actions, while not constituting a breach of Party rules, are deemed inappropriate for a senior employee of the organisation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25798659
Got to say I think that's mad, especially as school meals have recently been made free for all kids... under 7, I think.
Well I never.
Someone on £80k with 2 kids and a non working spouse might well struggle to pay £40k fees !
Whatever your position the article header and body don't coincide.
Matthew Goodwin @GoodwinMJ Jan 18
Those who think #Ukip & @Nigel_Farage lead an army of middle-class Tories should take a look at this chart -> pic.twitter.com/IFuhZe1whN
I still think it's bonkers. Someone earning £200,000 is paying a fortune in income tax. It's not like they aren't paying their way.
"The Three Musketeers" is a damp and turgid pile of crap: Dumas, Flynn and Al-Beeb included. Now The Flashing Blade: That was entertainment...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-ZEDNkZ2L4
In my case, for example, the rules said "The Executive Committee may withdraw membership from any member if continued membership is deemed to be contrary to the best interests of the club."
Would anyone care to have a go at construing it? There are at least five elephant traps, and my muppets obligingly leaped head-first into all of them...
Had the LDs handled this properly when the complaints were first raised, and Rennard a party employee, the employee disciplinary action might have led to some sort of resolution and stopped the thing in its tracks.
Unfortunately it wasn't and in an effort to hush the thing up, Rennard was eased out.
It's the cover up that gets them.....
He'll aim at the rich first of course. When they don;t pay or move somewhere else he'll have the bones off the backs of the rest of us.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/19/lord-rennard-apology-behaviour-common-manners-barrister
Muppet.
You are quite right. The right to grope is an ancient privilege.
I believe it is known today in the Lib Dem Party as "le droit de Senior".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10581628/Tories-feel-betrayed-by-their-contemptuous-leaders.html
Unfortunately for Christopher Booker, most of it is found in his own prejudices and preconceptions.
Osborne opted for a fiscal consolidation plan with a ratio of contributions between tax cuts and spending cuts of 20:80. This was the highest ratio recorded by the OECD among all countries undertaking significant deficit reduction programmes.
The result has been above average GDP growth, a faster exit from recession and the creation of more incentives for foreign inbound investment.
There will always be trade-offs when making decisions on how to achieve a core macro-economic goal.
Provided the two Eds spell out the consequences to the economy and the country of placing greater weight on tax rises when seeking to reduce the deficit, it would be beneficial for the electorate to have a real difference in economic policy upon which to make a decision in 2015.
More recent polling shows they're mostly people on average incomes aged 40 plus.
I'm glad they never used it.
Is it not why 'tis said a Mark is worth a hundred Pennies?
There are frequently older copies with a warning subtitle on the download that clearly came from Oscar vote recipients - but I don't recall a renegade going the whole hog before.
I'm out of touch with what's supposed to be worth watching from the nominations.
Any suggestions most appreciated as I now nerd about TV and films on another site and with shop assistants. I somehow ended up chatting about movies in Spar and Harry Ramsdens and tripped across one chap who's studying direction and another whose a nerd.
I can't buy a bag of chips without getting a subtitled Russian Chekov movie and being asked for my suggestions. Who knew fish and chips would be intellectually demanding?
I now share these with the check-out guy in Spar - what an odd little group we make!
They keep two sets of books - err - and have 11 grace and favour apartments costing £300k each for their senior officials.
It's a litany of snouts in the trough.
Ross Brawn is the leading candidate for team principal. Sam Michael is supposedly out. Ron wants a clear out of anyone brought in by Whitmarsh.
Hiding behind a double negative, am I not incorrect that you are suggesting the Lib Lords revolt on Rennard's treatment might be a proxy for a leadership battle?
Perhaps Lord Rennard is plotting to put Sarah Teather on top?
The other thing Labour (or at least Blair) had going for them was that they had a consistent theme that went along with their brand, so they could get along with talking a lot but not doing much substantial, because people believed them when they talked about it. Whereas Cameron built his brand on _not_ biting tramps, so if he announces that he's going to bite the same tramp once a week but the tramp is always still walking around without any visible tooth marks, the voters are just going to think he's full of shit.
Are you accusing me of over-valuing the Senior?
Not being a numismatist, my source was an online page entitled "A Short History of English Coins" ( http://www.bsswebsite.me.uk/A Short History of/coins.html ).
By pure chance and with no claim of any prior knowledge, it appears we are both correct:
The Mark was a monetary weight unit in the 9th century. It was worth 100 pennies @ 22½ grains = 2250 grains (of wheat, each now determined to weigh 48.6mg, barley was heavier at 64.8mg per grain). The Pound had been a weight unit since the time of the Romans (libra hence the abbreviation L.) and the pound weight was 240 pennies or 5400 grains. The mark was replaced with the Carolingian pound, created by Charlemagne around 800 A.D., and the mark was revalued at two-thirds of a pound equalling 160 pence or 13s-4d. The Carolingian pound weighed 12 ounces so a mark was 8 ounces of silver equivalent to the weight of twenty silver pennies. He also divided the silver pound into 20 solidi, or sous, or shillings, which was a throwback to the Gallic or Celtic method of counting in 20’s, each worth 12 denare, which in turn was a throwback to the Graeco-Roman method of counting in 12’s. This £1=20s=240d relationship was the well-known 1:20:240 which characterised the majority of silver-based monetary systems until the Napoleonic reforms of 1795. One mark of 24 carat gold equalled nine silver marks and was worth £6.
They are just lazy sobs who don't want to have to work for their front page story each week
It is Bet loses, free bet so something at longish odds that is value will fit the ticket.
I'm just bored stiff with UK politics, the circularity of its discussion. I've emigrated to a place where we have weekly guaranteed excitement and go OT every 10 threads. There's huge traffic so bar the quiet time when US posters are asleep - it's every few seconds. Leave it for a night and it's a running battle to get back on top of opinions/shared videos and news. We talk about everything tangentially connected with a subject.
I fondly recall when we could do so on PB - discussions about Killer Cucumbers and E. coli - where lurking expertise popped up, or weapons inspection and Grand Juries, favourite vegetables/recipes, cat videos, amazing pictures of low-flying aircraft or squabbling about mis-captioned naval ships.
For lots of reasons, OGH doesn't want PB to be like that anymore - so I feel I'm more at home elsewhere that's more free-range. We never discuss politics at all.
No!. Nobody could think that about Cameron, surely. The fact that his party's membership is in free-fall and he has, and probably will again, haemorrhaged voters is due to changing demographics, peculiarities of our voting system, world-wide trends, phases of the moon, anything other than the fact that an awful of members and voters have twigged that he is full of shit and is as trustworthy as Arthur Daley.
I noticed you aren't posting so often, or I'm missing ones where you do - busy elsewhere or just busy in life?
I'm certainly no fan of Ed Miliband, but what is the evidence that the rich will move away from the UK in large enough numbers to negate an increase in rates? I'm sure individual examples can be found, but of a sufficient number to make a tangible macroeconomic effect? I haven't seen anything.
Not sure what Niall Quinn is watching, that goal has been coming for a while.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/18/nick-clegg-aide-quits-lib-dems-lord-rennard?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
"You go into politics and you accept the notion of a collective agreement for the greater good. After 15 years working in the Lib Dems I realised there's no greater good, just everyone doing a shit job.
"Parliament is a place of blind ignorance, stuffed with racists and sexists and they are all idiots and they are accepted. And that's why I walked away. I was actually wasting my time."
She attacked the "intellectual sexist culture and endemic sleazy culture of Westminster". She said: "When I worked in the whips' office I had 10 male MPs who behaved completely inappropriately to me. It's far from unusual for researchers to have their bottoms pinched and to be kissed on the lips."
It sounds like a neanderthal workplace in the Seventies, I cannot see her and the others being happy with Rennard Lording it over the party again.
Seems like Bony had quite a few chances too
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/10581764/The-too-big-to-fail-problem-just-got-worse.html
Three things wrong with the banking system
1) Combined-sector banks distort both sector's business model (blah blah)
2) Lending for consumption and debt saturation is ultimately deflationary through feedback effect on the velocity of money (blah blah)
3) The third one is the capital ratio needs to be a throttle and not just a speed limiter and the capital ratios considered the default *normal* are too high. The default needs to be much lower and only go up when there's a lot of innovation (or modernization which is really just stored innovation).
(3) creates the boom part of the constant boom-bust cycles, (2) creates the bust part, both magnified to massively destructive levels by (1).
TL;DR
They're going to do it again because they own the political class and thus have no brakes.
Its not just moving abroad, or creating new accountancy dodges, sometimes it is simply a matter of throttling back at work. My NHS Salary is £89 000 per year, but if I earn more than £10 000 or so privately I get taxed at a marginal rate in the 60% bracket, by removal of the personal allowance. After secretarial, room rent, indemnity insurance and other expenses it is difficult to justify working. Better to walk the dog and surf the net.
Horner he ain't. There must be better candidates for top teams out there.
The Lib Dems have a real statesman-in-waiting in Danny. Tough and competent liberalism.
The culture of the Palace of Westminster, with its many bars, and MPs living away from their families surrounded by young wannabes, does lay it open to this sort of thing, particularly when progression to a safe seat relies so much on patronage.
It is another manifestation of the problems that arise when all political parties are favouring their own SPADS and researchers for preferment, over the wider community of the voting public.
Of course ADs do wake up sweating after dreams where they have omitted to move for sentence on more serious matters and this has happened at least once.
For more trivial stuff in the Sheriff court we don't bother with this sort of nonsense and the matter of sentence is entirely for the court.
By the way I should make clear that I do not accept the description of Scots law being barbarous. I am delighted that the Scottish government seems to have backed off the idea of abolishing the law of corroboration this week and it will remain a shining jewel in our crown. I find the idea that someone can be convicted on the single word of a single witness quite frightening.
'I'm certainly no fan of Ed Miliband, but what is the evidence that the rich will move away from the UK in large enough numbers to negate an increase in rates?'
The 70's when Denis Healey pulled the same stunt.
Sadly, I don't think he's up to the standard of F1. He allegedly wasn't well liked by many of the grunts at Williams.
Whitmarsh has really ballsed up the team though. At least Ron will sort it all out. If Ross Brawn can be convinced to give up his planned year off I daresay McLaren will surprise a lot of people in the coming season.
Tim Goss is also another one heading for the chopping block but they will probably keep him around until RBR let go of Peter Prodromou for the 2015 season.
As a McLaren fan first and foremost it is the best news I've heard in ages about them. Clearing out the deadwood is what they need. Getting rid of Button, Whitmarsh, Sam Michael, Jonathan Neale and the rest will revitalise the team.
Getting a big name sponsor in will also be a big challenge, one that Whitmarsh was not up to. He kept barking up our tree at Sony. I know for a fact that team sponsorship is not our MO. We would sponsor races or events. Ron will get a title sponsor sorted out for the transition season and then a big name from 2015 onwards. My money is on HSBC or Standard Chartered, both have a huge Asian presence and McLaren automotive is going to expand in Asia significantly under Ron's plans.